BF2S Forums Ronald Reagan

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I just wish we'd do less of this supplemental spending and simply budgeted for it.

I figure we've existed as a country long enough that we should be able to anticipate a general total amount of spending that will need to be done over the next year.

Leaving the door open for large amounts of supplemental spending outside of the budget is very bad for a country that really needs to cut its debt.

The problem with the supplemental spending is that it is war costs, not baseline spending. You can't really predict/budget war costs on a biennial basis, which is how the federal government works--you plan two years out. We just submitted our requirements for FY12. No way you can do that with war costs...they're too variable. Granted, we've been doing this war thing for a while, but even at that, with strategy changes, and force level changes, all that shifts within a budget cycle. There's really know way to fund that outside of annual supplementals. A necessary evil, so long as we're still fighting.

Points taken, but maybe this is indicative of needing a less interventionist foreign policy.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

i do actually know what it was like during those "good old days", unlike you. if anything it was a lot better than today in many ways.

Ah, yes. So much better as Soviet Russia, Comrade. I'm pretty sure I remember "the good old days" better than you do, as I'm older than you are. Nothing to write home about when both sides were constantly poised to nuke each other. This is much, much better.

well, the following may be debatable, but a lot of info - from both sides - have been revealed suggesting that after the cuban missile crysis nobody was really planning on ever using nukes. and i wasn't speaking about that anyway. how does no unemployment sound? free education available to anybody? what about free medical care? or actually working law enforcement institutions? an strong army? no problems with drugs (apart from alcohol)? it was all there, in the totalitarian shit-hole full of evil commies.
i doubt you'll understand, but, well, there goes...

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

well, the following may be debatable, but a lot of info - from both sides - have been revealed suggesting that after the cuban missile crysis nobody was really planning on ever using nukes. and i wasn't speaking about that anyway. how does no unemployment sound? free education available to anybody? what about free medical care? or actually working law enforcement institutions? an strong army? no problems with drugs (apart from alcohol)? it was all there, in the totalitarian shit-hole full of evil commies.
i doubt you'll understand, but, well, there goes...

Oh, I understand, but clearly you don't. Because you used the word "free".

oh... this must've been what they call "sarcasm". sorry, but i don't get it - i'm a brainwashed russian, remember? clearly you must have understood that by "free" i ment "free of charge". so... /shrug

Spark wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shahter wrote:

oh... this must've been what they call "sarcasm". sorry, but i don't get it - i'm a brainwashed russian, remember? clearly you must have understood that by "free" i ment "free of charge". so... /shrug

^^

Doesn't understand basic taxation and monetary concepts.

or, from other posts, scientific concepts like, erm, studies.

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

^^

Doesn't understand basic taxation and monetary concepts.

or, from other posts, scientific concepts like, erm, studies.

oh, so you know fuckall about soviet union and how it war operating, have no argument and join the trolls. well... k. come back when you have a point.

Spark wrote:

right, so anyone who thinks the soviet union wasn't the wonderful utopia you paint it as is a troll. nice methods there.

Spark wrote:

i notice you still haven't even tangentially addressed the point about ideological repression of certain research topics because they they were "idealistic" or anti-communist somehow.

Spark wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

right, so anyone who thinks the soviet union wasn't the wonderful utopia you paint it as is a troll. nice methods there.

remind me, when exactly did i say that?

Spark wrote:

i notice you still haven't even tangentially addressed the point about ideological repression of certain research topics because they they were "idealistic" or anti-communist somehow.

because you haven't backed that point up sufficiently? because there's no real scientific and academic freedom anywhere in the world? because various research topics are being repressed or put on backburner for all the "wrong reasons" right now in the west too?

right, so give me a recent western example of a major standard scientific theory such as, quote, "bourgeouis" quantum mechanics and general relativity, or genetics because of ideological reasons.

Cybargs wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

right, so give me a recent western example of a major standard scientific theory such as, quote, "bourgeouis" quantum mechanics and general relativity, or genetics because of ideological reasons.

ah, i see. so it's about names now. you know the difference between the reasons for something presented in a formal meeting and actual reasons discussed behind closed doors, right? communist ideology was completely idiotic, and, make no mistake, everybody, including dreaded stalin, understood that. all those "horrible examples of repression agains free research" are but farse, a formal justification, the real reasons were undoubtedly economical or political.

Communism doesn't make any logical sense at all.

FEOS wrote:

As to the "gag order" bit. I'd like to see if you can provide some examples of US press being suppressed by the government in the way that you're describing...at least in the post-WW2 period, as I'm not aware of any.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-19 07:34:34)

FEOS wrote:

BLdw wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't know what USA you're talking about. Our press can't be shut up, no matter how badly we would like to at times--the First Amendment of our Constitution prevents it.

Gagging order works very well in the USA too. Sure First Amendment of your Constitution prevents it, in theory, yet it happens in USA. It's not a "mystery" or conspiracy how gag order works. It's a legal way of gagging information to maintain the safety of public, or to prevent any information to be published if it's seen to be unconstitutional or thread to the national security. Press can bypass this (because of free media) but it may lead to court.

Gagging order is actually very deep in form of laws and "gaggings" are very rarely taken into the court as it could easily mean tremendous loss for both participants taking part in the process. Gag order is also often used to sway public opinions by single handedly reporting from certain point of views while hiding more crucial problems/questions/et

Will see how badly my quotations are messed...

Hopefully I did mention many times enough if Reagan did the last push or not. *Cough*

Your points WRT Reagan (and Nixon) are valid. The closed nature of Soviet society makes it difficult to prove one way or the other, doesn't it?

As to the "gag order" bit. I'd like to see if you can provide some examples of US press being suppressed by the government in the way that you're describing...at least in the post-WW2 period, as I'm not aware of any.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-19 19:04:17)

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Points taken, but maybe this is indicative of needing a less interventionist foreign policy.

Perhaps we need to have less expectation of/pressure for interventionism from the rest of the world?

I would argue most of the pressure is coming from the military industrial complex, not so much the rest of the world.

Turq wrote:

Granted, I would agree that the rest of the world needs to make up its mind about when it actually wants our help.  It does sometimes feel like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing sometimes.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I have to snicker at the "military industrial complex" stuff. Unless you have some kind of proof of a cabal whispering in the POTUS's ear, all foreign policy comes from the Chief Executive, based on the National Security Strategy documents. Those guide the DoD, State Department...all agencies in the Executive Branch in acting in concert (theoretically) on foreign policy.

Yes but you're part of it.

Presumably congressman and senators have some influence on the White House?
Who writes the NSS docs?

Dilbert_X wrote:

See above.

Just pay attention in the UN.