---Majin's *Official* November 4th 2008 General Election Recommendations---

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by econgrad

Unfortunately there is so little going on regarding Sacramento development that debating politics is kind of filling the gap for me right now...BUT BELIEVE ME! I would be very very happy hearing some news and discussing some real development for Sacramento and the surrounding areas. I guess they even stopped the development for the new hotel at Thunder Valley because of the economy? This is what I heard from hearsay. If anyone knows differently please chime in. I hope we have some new developments to discuss soon.

Econgrad... I hope to be changing this in the near future and that soon there is at least one new development to discuss. Stay tuned...

As for the rest, some people simply reject whatever doesn't agree with their own biases. If they were raised to believe Reagan was a war-mongering simpleton (sound familiar?), then no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. Bennywah takes one line out of a long (I know, too long for many...) post regarding Kryptos's laughably ignorant economic diatribe:

...Reagan years, but the bulk of that was for increased defense spending that was used to defeat our greatest rival and exporter of misery throughout the world - the Soviet Union - a country that largely because of Reagan, no longer exists.

Please note "largely:" that doesn't mean "exclusively."

In response, I wrote just in case anyone thought I was crediting Reagan as the sole reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the winning of the Cold War:

Obviously, no single factor was responsible for the Soviet Union's collapse (an argument can be made that Pope John-Paul had much to do with the demise of the USSR), but to minimize Reagan's contributions is more Liberal wishful thinking than it is historically accurate.

But benneywah, like most liberals (and yes I read your explanation, but if it walks like a liberal and talks like a liberal... it's a liberal... oh, maybe I should make that "progressive" as that's the term many liberals seem to prefer now. They must think "liberal" is a dirty word or something), just can't give Reagan credit for his contribution to the demise of a ruthless empire bent on global domination in its image. An empire directly responsible for the deaths of at least 25 million of it's own people and countless more beyond it's borders.

The quick and dirty argument is that Reagan's defense budgets spent the USSR into oblivion. E.g., The Soviet's were frightened by the "Star Wars" missile defense program not only because the US was so technologically advanced (although it's debatable that we could have developed an effective system during Reagan's presidency), but because of the vast sums it would have taken to develop a countermeasure. Even Benneywah acknowledges this when he writes:

soviet unions then economic woes was hendering them from keeping up an any way with American defenses

Now, as for your "evidence," you originally wrote:

most evidence shows the cold war would have ended wether reagan was in office or not

A few, scattered news "exposes" and blogs does not constitute the "most" evidence of anything: Let alone Reagan's role in ending the Cold War. And even if you wish to minimize Reagan's enormous contribution, you can't deny that at the very least, his policies accelerated the USSR's collapse and saved millions of lives and liberated millions more (e.g. Warsaw Pact nations). Saving and freeing millions of people is no small accomplishment.

I'm still waiting to read your coherent argument of how supply-side economics has created a "national security nightmare." Every nation on earth works with those countries that share national security interests. Even if they find it distasteful. At the time, Iran was the threat and destabilizing force in the region and Iraq provided a counter to that threat. To claim that Reagan is responsible for today's radical religious threat and the vicious acts committed in its name is foolhardy at best. One could more easily claim that the national security nightmare is the result of President Carters completely ineffectual and timid response to the Iranian taking of American hostages in 1979. That's not an argument I would feel comfortable making, but it has a better facts set going for it than does the ridiculous argument that Reagan or supply-side economics caused it.

Anyway, like most people I'm sure, I've grown tired of this. There's plenty more to say, but really, what's the point? It's an old story: If history doesn't agree with some people's prejudices, they try to change the history.

I'll let you have the last word...

[bennywah]

Travis, heres my full quote in context "The soviet unions then economic woes were hendering them from keeping up an any way with American defenses while the social climate for change in the soviet union and eastern Europe was strong for it to happen."

It was not only they couldn't keep up, there society and that of eastern europe were moving in that direction, e might have had another president take the same stance as Reagan and had the same result, or had someone different and through cultural and economic change by itself had the same result, an end to the cold war, what Reagan was great at conveying was that we did defeat them and it gave the image of a stronger nation and united us, which makes him historical and why he was an effective communicator, in retrospect with more points of view and delving into facts not obvious to everyone at the time it allows us to see that his role might not have been as large or the main factor for the outcome of the end to the cold war, I'll also say that it's possible our bluff (star wars) was the nail in the coffin I can see it from both sides.

I started to write a long response but then I figured I would start to sound like those that feel they constantly have to defend their view because they cant agree thats it's o.k to disagree, I just happen to love history and debating, although I prefer to do it in person because I write my responses fast due to the fact I'm busy normally. I have fun reading others points of view and thats what I love about history, it's not black or white, its grey. The perception of events in history changes with our own evolution and the effects that an event has many years later on society and other factors we couldn't see then that come to light.

I do not want to reduce a persons role in something purely on political ideology, however I will look at it objectively when other factors, and sources question what was the established thought to a fact in history.

As for Reagan's supply side tax cuts and there national security impacts now? Quickly I'll write that again, if the budget is not balanced along with those tax cuts we then have to borrow money to cover the deficit we run which adds to our national debt. At some point we have to reduce or pay that debt off or face having our credit being cut off, a quick example is if we couldn't borrow money right now, the Iraq war would come to an end, that war isn't even in the normal budget, its off the books and is completely financed through borrowing, it still however adds to the deficit. Since the budget has a shortfall even without the war the tax cuts which have now endangered the nations wealth and credit ranking end up being a negative and a national security risk, had Reagan, and Bush 43 not run up huge deficits which increased our national debt by quite a bit we'd have our own money to finance wars, bailouts, ect. Instead we our now relying on credit to get ourselves out of the mess of reckless tax cuts that didn't account for cuts in spending or a downturn in the economy, it doesn't matter that we get the money from China, India, its that they now control our purse strings and should they deem it in their best interest to cut us off, they will then have the power.

As long as we are not energy dependent, help our struggling manufacturing sector, get our budgets and debts in order we will continue to lose our power and standing in the world, no republican, democrat, or independent can argue that without wealth, money, energy you can remain THE world leader, Reagan's increase in defense spending MAY have been the factor that ended the cold war, but his supply side tax cuts couldn't pay for them and Bush 41, and Clinton saw that you gotta cut spending and raise taxes in order to pay for that build up and pay off the debt incurred to see the nation remain strong, and since Clintons economy was pretty good by most accounts had Bush 43 waited on his tax cuts, or kept the 3.6% increase he cut, we might have our own money to do as we need. I'll write up a response which goes into further detail and pm it to you if you want for us to debate without everyone else having to sift over it unless they to want to see the thinking behind it, in any case I find it fun to have discussions like this and since across the nation building is slow it fills the time.

[bennywah]

lol. well after some discussions with family, family in law, and some red state experience. I think I should write a thesis paper when I go for a P.H.D in either sociology or psychology on subjects relating to family upbringing, sexuality, and values in the 21st century. Im constantly surprised by how our ongoing experiences can color our views on the world at large!

[econgrad]

^ You haven't declared a major yet? A PHD in Psychology is extremely different from Sociology. Also, give up the red state blue state labeling, and really listen to what people say. States change, CA went to Reagan both times, they called California "Reagan Country". Then, the Repubs blew it and lost their way. Its not just an experience thing too, listen to peoples logic and reasoning with the facts they have. No one can be God and have all the facts either. Although we debate on here, I am glad to hear about you studying what makes people do and think what they do and think. Good luck and best wishes! I think that's really cool.

[bennywah]

^ thanks econgrad. My majors been poly sci forever, however over the last year and a half I've been increasingly taking and loving psychology courses and sociology just happens to also be in the family of social sciences you take for either major. poly sci or psych.

I tend to be a people watcher and I think its one of the reasons I tend to be open minded to others points of view.

I happen to be in Minot N.D visiting my brother and his family up here at Minot A.F.B. In going to the town here, and going out last night the culture up here is different to what I've seen in California, just like what I've seen in Manhattan is different, just like Miami ect. It also got my brother his wife and myself talking about our upbringings and how our ideals changed as we got older.

My brother and I lived in upper middle class neighborhoods, I went to private catholic and christian schools until 5th grade(where I then asked to go to public schools) and even though my mom is a liberal democrat, she never forced my brother or I to take her views as our own, and encouraged us to form our own opinions and be our own people, she also didn't shelter us from bad things in the world, or make judgements about other peoples lifestyles, she as I have mentioned is a lesbian but she really didn't bring that side of her life around my brother and I and I didn't know she was until I was thirteen, where I asked her why did you choose to be that way, and she said she didn't she was born that way.

very briefly she took us to a group that included other gay, or gay couples with kids, initially I was kinda freaked out seeing two guys kiss in person, and their kids seeing it as normal, but in being around those families I got to see the love and determination to live life normally, and to be good people. Their kids just like my brother and I went on to date the opposite sex, and some of those kids like my brother now have families of their own, and to top it off we found out from other friends who were raised in normal families that we were kinda conservative towards certain activities, like underage drinking, sex, drugs.

I don't think my situation makes me better or worse or defines all people who had similar upbringings to be the same, I do think it shows though that being surrounded by people of all different backgrounds makes one more aware and tolerant, and accepting to others lifestyles, I've been around super religious people, far right conservatives, ultra left winged tree huggers, military people, the list goes on and everyone of them taught me something which I think makes me better for it.

anyhoo the whole meaning of this rant came about because my sister n law and my brother and I started talking about how we were brought up, and our thoughts now as we've seen the world as adults, she was sheltered and brought up to be a good christian, but ended up rebelling in her teenage years to experience other things and eventually joined the air force to get away from her family, my brother decided at 16 he would join the air force because he loves planes and serving the country. She was surprised that my brother and I didn't drink before we were 21, or were having sex at a young age or experimenting with drugs.

she was raised to think far left parents like my mom raised kids who would turn out to be bad people into all of those things, she knows now thats not true, but I am also friends with people who were raised in a similar way to her and some came out perfect citizens while some didn't. That lead the talk to what if their son told them he was gay, and if after what she's seen and heard and learned from life would affect how they'd react to such news, originally she said she would have been shocked to think he'd choose that lifestyle, but now she thinks if you were born that way than there's nothing wrong with it and she'd support him, she said she'd be disapointed but she loves her son and thats what is important, he said he would love him and be there for him and it doesn't matter wether he's gay or straight as long as he was a good kid.

I am struggling on a way to finish this rant and have it make sense, but maybe in just telling a more personal story, letting people read it and think about people in their lives, and how they've changed may be the point, and in that I also don't want people to give up their religious views, or change parties, or be an enviromentalist, just like I don't want people to shun ones religious views, think people are bad because they like suv's and think you're a bigot because of your views which may be a result of your upbringing.

maybe people being somewhat more personal can open a dialogue which brings people closer to understanding their point of view, and in that we can eliminate some of the fears we have towards opposing points of view and find common ground, and learn from one another and be the purple nation we really are, maybe I'm being to wishful in thinking that might work, but at least its worth a try.

hers a question to everyone, what if you found out a sibling, or even one of your kids turned out to be gay, how would you react, would it change your views on the subject? I know a lot of us don't have kids but think about if and when you do, food for thought?