--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Containing communism > > Dr. Brin, you think the GOP opposed this? You > remember the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan said "Mr. > Gorbachev, tear down this wall." While your favored > party imitated Neville Chamberlain?
This shows your utterly astounding ignorance. Totally without parallel this week. You win the prize. Fact, Vandenburg and the GOP leaders in 1945 wanted a return to the old American tradition of isolationism. It was The Truman Administration, directed by the greatest man of the 20th Century, George Marshall, who set up NATO, The MArshall plan, fought down communist coups in Greece, Italy and other places, and laid down the basic Cold War plan that Reagan got to reap on his watch. "Containing Communism" is a term that comes from.... wait for it... the US LABOR MOVEMENT! The leading force in pushing for aggressive counter moves against Stalin was the AFL CIO. Oh, and later? It was Jimmy Carter who reversed the steady dismantling of the US military that occurred under Gerald Ford. True, many in his party did not like his arms buildup, but THAT was what got the momentum going for Reagan. Gawd what ignorance. > > > > >public universities > > This? > > > > >medical research > > How much has the NIH budget gone up under Bush? You tell me. And then I'll show you how much has been 'earmarked" by the most corrupt and pork-mad Congress in our history. > > > > >exploring space > > Who founded NASA? This one's a little weaker. Ike founded NASA, after refusing for 8 years to allow any talk of outer space and getting caught pants down by sputnik. Still, Ike was okay. Human and honest. > > > >saving the bald eagle and other endangered > > species > > The Endangered Species Act was passed under which > President? By whose agenda? Oh, I will admit that Nixon's policies look positively Jesus-like compared to the current brat pack. He proposed universal health care and the overly ambitious dems turned him down. Still, the Goppers in congress fought against the EPA tooth and nail and have, ever since, so drop that one. > > > > >increasing basic literacy from 15% to 95% and > > > college > > > >attendance from 2% to nearly 50% > > Literacy rates in the US were well over fifty > percent > before American independence. The Republican Party > was founded in 1856. That was a misprint. SHould have been 5o not 15. Though it depends on what you call literacy. By 1870 the GOP had no interest in educating the people they had freed. > > The GI Bill was passed by a Congress dominated by > which party? Democrats. What planet are you on? > > > > >opposing fascism and defeating Hitler > > You think the GOP opposed these things? Again, > history. Why was foreign policy not an issue in the > election of 1940? It was the only way that > Republicans could have won - the people were really, > really opposed to getting into another European war. 1940 was an abberation. The GOP, in desperation, nominated a truly decent human being, Wendell Wilkie, who became a champion of intervention. Meanwhile, his party was as isolationist as it was in defeating the LEague of Nations. > > Why wasn't it an issue? It wasn't an issue because > the Republicans _agreed_ - they wanted to do > something > about Hitler as well. Complete ignorance. Complete. Willfull, Total. > > And at least we're consistent. Republicans still > oppose Fascism in Iraq, and were willing to do > something about it. After setting up Saddam, breast feeding him, the slapping his wrist and unleashing him on his own people... ...then finally lying like mad to us in order to rush in, instead of having the patience that Clinton and Clark showed in the Balkans, to gradually build up the needed alliance of consensus and do it right, without pissing in the faces of our friends and ruining the western alliance... which we may need any day, since our readiness is now at the lowest level since Pearl Harbor. These are NOT the same complaints as those voiced by Howard Dean. His pusilanimous antiwar position I have no patience for. Saddam had to go. But it is not all or nothing. I can be glad these bozos finally corrected their venial, horrible, treacherous acts of 91... while at the same time despise the way they've done it. > > > > >promoting democracy overseas > > > >antitrust rules to encourage market competition > > You know, like in Iraq? That doesn't seem to have > been a democratic party initiative. Baloney. The GOP has always befriended dictators. Bush Sr. was praising Fidel Marcos weeks before the Phillipino people rose up against him. He praised Saddam for YEARS. > Sherman (of the anti-trust act) was a member of > which > party? I already credited that one to the great Teddy Roosevelt. A man utterly despised by his own party. > > > > >supporting Israel > > Clearly, it's the _Democratic Party_, that supports > Israel more. It was a Democratic President whom the > Israeli government has called one of the best > friends > Israel has ever had. No, that was George W. Bush. > Who are the most important supporters of Israel in > the > United States? Evangelical Christians. And we all > know they vote Democratic. I said had the idea. That was Truman/Marshall. I NEVER said that these great ideas did not later get embraced by goppers, after they had become sacrosanct. Notice all the guys who fought against civil rights who now have pictures of MLKing on their walls? I was responding to that "party of ideas" malarky. > > > > >civil rights > > Opposed by the Republican Party? Ted Bilbo was in > which party? George Wallace was in which party? > Have > you ever even heard of Rockefeller Republicans? > Which > President first implemented Affirmative Action? > Which > party provided more votes in the Senate for the > Civil > Rights Act? It is utterly fatuous to even try to pose that the GOP took a lead in civil rights. Look in a mirror and say it without smirking. Why did Helms and Thurmond SWITCH! True, the dems have had their monsters. You should hear me go at THEM! But they are a melange. A stew. Ranging from awful to great. The GOP has been that way at times. Even when Rockefeller and Nixon and Kissinger and the brilliant Goldwater were around. Not now. It is a nearly uniform, lockstep, bought and paid for tool of a narrow aristocratic clique of 20,000 golf buddies and frat brothers,500 of whom are Saudi Sheiks. > > > > >bringing women into echelons of power > > Wait, when was the 19th Amendment passed? Supported > largely by which party? ditto civil rights. gawd what gall you have. > > > >resisting Japanese imperial ambitions before & > > > during > > > >WWII > > Actually, that would be the Republicans far more > than > the Democrats. FDR was interested in _Europe_, the > GOP was more interested in Asia. It's only the > ethnocentrism of the left (white guys like you, Dr. > Brin) who think that the whole world is Europe, so > if > you're more interested in other parts, you're an > "isolationist". You are totally, totally without any grasp of history, aren't you? I see this often, people who absorb just enough from Rush Limbaugh (or Gloria Steinem) to fill their rose colored glasses. Astounding. > > > Dr. Brin, everyone is entitled to their own > opinions, > but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. > You > might be able to intimidate some people with lists > like that, but not me. Of course not. The very way you express it, as intimidation instead of argument, shows how futile ANY list will be. > > I would also point out, by the way, that the very > nature of your list reveals a biased conception of > government. Not all ideas are good ones. The > _purpose_ of a conservative party is not to generate > ideas. Rather extraordinarily, the American > conservative party (the Republicans now, the > Democrats > before 1912) has been intellectually prolific. But > the purpose of conservatives is to preserve and > defend > _old_ ideas, good ideas, the ones that make the > United > States what it is. I'd be interested in your list of such ideas. Generalities so far. But no, the purpose is to defend old MONEY. The idea that democracy was > better > than dictatorship? That's an old idea, but it > wasn't > conservatives who talked about the moral equivalence > of the superpowers. That free markets are better > that > socialist planning? That's an old idea too - but > when > Ronald Reagan took office, people talked about "two > roads to development." You claim this, then refuse to note that the only DEEEEEE regulation that went on came from democrats. Except for the chance to dereg and rip off Savings and loans (Reagan/Bush) and then the chance to 'dereg" and ripoff Energy (Jr.) Talk all you want about socialism and other buzz words. Don't apply here tho. A smooth socialist one and a > bumpy capitalist one. It took a conservative - > Reagan > - to defend the truth of the old idea. There's only > one road to development, and free markets are that > road. Baloney. I will show you how much baloney. The following lists were written toward the end of the Clinton admin, that's what they say seven years and not eight. In TWELVE years under Reagan-Bush, the economy created 18 million jobs. In SEVEN years under Clinton-Gore, the economy created 22 million jobs. In 12 years under Reagan-Bush the annual deficit INCREASED from $74Billion to $290 Billion. In 7 years under Clinton-Gore the deficit turned into a $124Billion SURPLUS. In TWELVE years under Reagan-Bush, the number of people on welfare INCREASED 30% In SEVEN years under Clinton-Gore, the number of people on welfare DECREASED over 40% In TWELVE years under Reagan-Bush crime INCREASED 25% In SEVEN years under Clinton-Gore crime DECREASED 20% In TWELVE years under Reagan-Bush illegal immigration skyrocketed. In SEVEN years under Clinton-Gore illegal immigration came under control. Oh yeah, the GOP party line is that it was all LUCK! Nothing Clinton-Gore did had anything to do with these good things! Being evenhanded, I'll admit that there is something to be said for the notion that luck played some role... as a whole lot of luck played a role in the fact that the USSR collapsed during the Reagan Administration. But to give one group ALL the credit for the good things that happened on their watch and to give the other group NONE of the credit for theirs... well, that's not only partisan, it's downright laughable. ===== . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
