After Promising Not to, Rather Attacks Deceased President.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Duncan

I knew you of all people would deny the greatness of Reagan.

Look Mike, I'm sure you will take the right of center position and say Gorbachev was the hero and Reagan almost destroyed the economy, but please when you post your sources don’t use commondreams.org, Molly Ivins, a Berkeley professor, or any of those other centrist sources you throw around.

That’s all I ask.

I was going to wait until after his funeral, but here it is.

Put it this way, my father was part of the Soviet Awareness briefing team at Bolling AFB from 79-85. He actually got to go to the Soviet Union before the cold war ended and he would report on the state of their economy, military etc. It wasn't a spy mission, but a policy set up by Carter to allow both US citizens to the USSR and Soviet citizent to the US.

During his term on the team, he would start with a presentation of the state of economic affairs in the Soviet Union. It was actually really cool, it would start with "The Wall" from Floyd and he used the soundtrack in his presentation. The conditions in 79' were deplorable to say the least. They were waiting in lines for a loaf of bread for 3 hours. It was really a bad situation. What Reagan did, was provide a voice which said if you guys reform, we will not attack you and take over your country. That did not cause the Soviet Union to fall, the fall came from within and from other factors.

Well, the Soviet Union continued to fall apart during the invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets always liked to have a "buffer zone" between themselves and the rest of the world. Hence the Eastern block countries. Afghanistan was the only area where there were other values than communisim on their border and it scared them. They were a very paranoid nation.

When they decided to invade Afghanistan, they did a LOT of damage. Most of the power came from their attack helicopters, the name escapes me right now, but it was their version of the Apachie. Well, they were having great success against the Afghanis and the Mujahadeen and they had no defense for the Soviets helicopters. Well, we brought the CIA to Afghanistan with Stinger Missles and it turned the tide of the war.

THe Afghanis were quick to learn the technique of shooting down the attack helicpoters and took away their main ofensive weapon. The Soviets poured all their energy and power into taking over Afghanistan and buy the end, it was too late.

The war with Afghanistan turned the Soviet economy upside down. By the time they pulled out of Afghanistan (85 I believe) their economy had just about bottomed out. Unemployment was over 20%, alcoholosim was rampant, and three leaders died in the past three years.

When Gorbachev was "elected" to power, he noticed the problems and started to put throught the changes for reforming the government. He realized they couldn't survuve on their current political-economical system and he started to dismantle it. Reagan often gets credit for it and it's common belief in the press that Reagan was the reason the Soviets fell, but it's a false hood. People think that SDI was the reasons the USSR gave up, but it's incorrect. The Soviets gave up because they no longer had a viable economy to continue the charade. Gorbachev realized this and started his reform.

Reagan made the famous speech in Berlin, the "tear down this wall" speech, but It was just used to put pressure on the Soviets to do the inevedible, reform their governmant. The next 15 years were spent switching over from a closde economic system to a free market system.

Anyways, I wasn't going to bring this up, but since you asked I figured I'd share it with you. I'm not bashing Reagan, just pointing out the real story about the fall of the USSR, not the commonly held misnomer that Reagan ended the Cold War with his spending.

If you want to do more reading on the subject look up glastnost (russian for change, it defined the change to openness of the communist party by Gorbachev, US equivalent is free speech) and perestroika (economic reforn of the Soviet Union, pull out of Afghanistan, Reduce Arms and curb military spending).

This post is by no means meant to denegrate Reagan's legacy, but to put into prespective what happened with the Soviet union. It's a common misnomer which gets thrown around as if it's completely factual, but it's pretty far from the truth. What Reagan offered was a voice of reason, not a rant of rhetoric. He convinced the Soviets if they changed their policies and turned around their economic system, we would not attack them. That's not ending the cold war, but jumping on a train rolling down hill. It didn't matter who was in power, it would have happened anyway.

[jenmdixon]

Article on AIDS Funding during the Reagan Administration:

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1986/nov/mcdonald_p1_861117.html

The Scientist 1[2]:1, Nov. 17, 1986

NEWS

AIDS Funding Outlook Hazy

By Amy McDonald

WASHINGTON-The drive to quadruple federal funding for AIDS research to $1 billion annually faces an uncertain future within the Reagan administration and in Congress.

A star-studded joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine has urged the massive increase after an intensive six-month study. Its report, issued late last month, also chides the National Institutes of Health for not enlisting enough university researchers in its effort to better understand the basic nature of the deadly virus.

"If the senator has his way, funding will be increased," said a spokesman for Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.), outgoing chairman of the Senate appropriations sub-committee that handles the majority of AIDS funding. "But it's hard to say now what lies ahead, and whether a $1 billion budget is realistic for 1990."

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is "looking at the possibility of developing a budget along the lines suggested," said Robert Rabin, assistant director for life sciences. He acknowledged the significance of the report and its certain implications on the President's 1988 budget but declined to comment on the level of funding it recommended.

Some observers say the ball is in the Reagan administration's court. "Will the Administration develop a plan that really asks researchers what they need in conquering AIDS, and will it really mean it when it asks the question?" wondered Terry Beirn, program officer at the American Foundation for AIDS Research.

Committee co-chair David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist, said at a press conference that federal research dollars must come from new appropriations rather than from existing public health programs. The government spent $249 million last year on efforts to understand the disease and is expected to spend nearly $400 million in fiscal 1987, said Baltimore, director of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The panel also conclude4 that another $1 billion from public and private sources is required to re place "woefully inadequate" federal education efforts with a "massive and continuing public education campaign."

NIH, which will receive $247 million for AIDS research in fiscal 1987, has come to rely increasingly on government-generated research contracts at the expense of the more innovative investigator-initiated grants. The amount spent on AIDS research contracts, which tend to appeal to federal scientists, has increased almost five-fold since 1982, while grant awards for basic research have dropped from 40 percent of all AIDS funds spent by NIH to less than 20 percent today.

The nature and priorities of the research have a lot to do with the current critical situation, said Jane Durch of Harvard University's Health Science Policy Working Group, which prepared a background report for the committee. Roy Widdus, staff director for the committee, noted that large-scale efforts such as drug testing are better handled through contracts. But, he added, "the simple fact is that there hasn't been enough money to go around. We're convinced that NIH management feels the same way-they'd love to put more money into these basic research-oriented grants."

According to Baltimore, funding is especially needed to improve facilities and equipment for human immunodeficiency virus research, to focus more attention on animal model development, and to maintain an ample supply of chimpanzees and other animal stocks necessary for effective vaccine and drug development. This last recommendation is likely to become an issue with animal rights activists, who charge that AIDS is being used as an excuse to block the progress they have made in protecting chimpanzees.

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

The Scientist 1[2]:1, Nov. 17, 1986

© Copyright 1986, The Scientist, Inc. All rights reserved.

[jenmdixon]

and another article on spending, this time in 1988:

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1988/jan/mervis_p3_880111.html

Budget Cuts Trim NSF's Hopes

By Jeffrey Mervis

Date: January 11, 1988

WASHINGTON--Scientists may receive some unhappy tidings from NSF officials in the wake of sharp cuts by Congress in its proposed budget for the current year. Those who depend on NIH funding can expect better news, especially AIDS researchers. Space science appears to have avoided the pressure on NASA's budget that led to a 45 percent cut in the $767 million requested for the space station.

Although the NSF budget will go up by 5.8 percent-a total of $90 million-as part of the $600 billion appropriations bill approved last month by Congress, officials were hoping for a 17 percent increase.

Individual and group research programs, which make up about 85 percent of NSF's $1.7 billion budget, received a mere 3.3 percent increase. That small rise threatens the start in this fiscal year of the proposed $30 million science and technology centers project and other new programs.

"It's a serious situation," admitted NSF controller Sandra Toye the day after the budget agreement was reached December 21. "We received a much smaller increase than even the most pessimistic mark in either house. All the planning we have done will have to be done over again, and if there are going to be delays or changes in specific programs we'll put the word out as soon as possible."

Next year's budget cycle begins in mid-February when President Reagan sends his fiscal 1989 budget to Congress. Few people expect it to contain much better news. Despite the talk about competitiveness and the importance of a strong research base, the goal of doubling the NSF budget by 1992, which Reagan set out last winter, looks increasingly unattainable.

"The summit agreement [to re duce the federal deficit by $75 billion over the next two years] contains a 2 percent cap in the growth of non-defense, discretionary programs in FY 89," noted one NSF official who monitors legislative activity. "To stay on target for a doubling we'd need a 25 percent increase next year. But if you get too far out of line your budget is dead in the water."

Congress was much more favorably disposed toward NSF's science education program, granting it a 40 percent increase, to $139 million. The $40 million increase was more than twice what the administration has requested, reflecting congressional feeling that NSF should do more to encourage more Americans to study science and engineering. The Antarctic research program received a 6.7 percent increase, to $124 million, less than a third of NSF's request.

NIH, which traditionally benefits from widespread support in Congress, saw its 1988 budget increase by 7.8 percent, to $6.667 billion. But spending on AIDS, which will be increased 77 percent, to $448 million, within NIH, will consume more than 40 percent of its $480 million increase. Overall government spending on AIDS will be $936 million.

"With inflation taken into account we have a level budget," said NIH Director James Wyngaarden about the 4.8 percent increase in non-AIDS research. "Will there be programs eliminated or delayed? Yes."

The picture varies within NIH's 12 institutes. Several received double-digit increases, led by 17 percent for the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases and 14 percent at the Division of Research Resources. Although budget conferees in most cases split the difference between House and Senate funding levels, The National Institute on Aging received the higher House version-a 10 percent increase. The budget for buildings and facilities on the NIH campus rose by more than 50 percent, to $48 million.

NASA's $1.6 billion request for space science and applications was by and large granted. The Mars Observer mission received a $25 million increase, to $54 million, and the Explorer program of sounding rockets got an additional $10 million, to $70 million. The National Aerospace Plane received $13 million less than the $66 million requested for it. The $90 million sought for the Ocean Topography Experiment program (TOPEX) was cut to $80 million, and the $25 million requested for the Global Geospace Science Mission was reduced to $20 million.

Mervis is on the staff of THE SCIENTIST

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

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

The Scientist 2[1]:3, Jan. 11, 1988

© Copyright 1988, The Scientist, Inc. All rights reserved.

[chomerics]

I thought the $6billion was high. Nice work Jen.

[Sarge]

When they decided to invade Afghanistan, they did a LOT of damage. Most of the power came from their attack helicopters, the name escapes me right now, but it was their version of the Apachie.

Hind. It was much bigger than the Apache, but was used in the same capacity

You cite examples of the Soviet economy in your last post, but draw opposing conclusions. First you say Reagan didn't bring down the Soviets, but earlier you say

The Soviets poured all their energy and power into taking over Afghanistan and buy the end, it was too late.

The war with Afghanistan turned the Soviet economy upside down. By the time they pulled out of Afghanistan (85 I believe) their economy had just about bottomed out

Why did they have to "pour all their energy and power" into this situation? Because as you said earlier, Reagan sent to CIA with Stingers to help in the fight against the Soviets, thus making to Soviets spend money they didn't have. Star Wars just piled on a crumbling economy.

[jenmdixon]

originally posted by Navy Dave

President Reagan administration spent over 6 billion for a disease that has civil rights status and can be prevented by not being wrecklessly promiscuos and or deviant.

The spending wasnt kept in check by Democratic controlled Congress who spent more that what was taking in.

.....

AND

.....

The numbers of what we "wasted" on a preventable disease during his administration is on public record so attempt to dismiss it all you like.

Navy Dave, where is your backup to your statements about spending of $6 Billion during Reagan's administration? Please provide us with a link to this data you say is on public record sot hat I, and the rest of the readership, can be enlightened.

Originally posted by Sarge

I wouldn't have cared if he didn't spend a dime on AIDS. It was the result of pervs having deviant sex in bath houses. Why should I or anyone else pay for that? You want ot have homo sex, pay to find your own cure

Sarge, that has to be one of the ugliest statements I have ever seen or heard. Wow.

Off topic here...

Tell me, why does it matter how AIDS is transmitted? Perhaps you think that syphilis or gonorrhea or any of the other 'sexually transmitted diseases' should not be researched to find a cure on the taxpayer's dime as well? What about cervical cancer?

[Cskin]

Here on the extreme boards we've had NavyDave and other looking to pick a fight and using the same cheap tacitc. If you respond to their insults you are attacked for speaking ill of a fallen President. I'll hold myself in check over Reagan because I do respect the man, but I'm not going to pretend I don't see the cheap tactic being used here.

Destino... read my initial post again. I didn't say speaking ill will of the president at ANYTIME would be just another Liberal African hyena attack against the Right and Conservatives... I said to withold disparraging the President or debating his administration and policy until AFTER the Memorial service is done. Could the Dems not have waited a week before minimalizing his administration and highlighting his weaknesses and perceived wrongdoings?

I would ask the same of the Right in the case of President Carter's death or President Clinton god for bid. It's a show of respect, wait until after the ceremonies and memorials are through.... until the American public has had their moment to reflect and grieve... before resuming business as usual in Washington. The Liberal media, aka.. Rather.. Jennings.. Brokaw, couldn't even do that? Heck... they were getting their digs in DURING the ceremony.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Sarge

Hind. It was much bigger than the Apache, but was used in the same capacity

You cite examples of the Soviet economy in your last post, but draw opposing conclusions. First you say Reagan didn't bring down the Soviets, but earlier you say

Why did they have to "pour all their energy and power" into this situation? Because as you said earlier, Reagan sent to CIA with Stingers to help in the fight against the Soviets, thus making to Soviets spend money they didn't have. Star Wars just piled on a crumbling economy.

Thanks for the name, I couldn't remember it, but they were BIG A$$ helicopters.

Sarge, the stingers were responsible for the accelerated downfall of the Soviet Union, and yes the CIA was responsible for supplying them with weapons. I wouldn't consider this the main reason for the fall of the Soviet Union though.

Afghanistan was a major mistake for the Soviets. It came when there was great unrest in Iran and they were paranoid for their border and Afghanistan. They took a "pre-emptive" policy (gee where have I heard that before) and invaded. They were kicking ass until the stingers, but their situation back in Mascow was deteriorating rapidly. The war with Afghanistan only hastened their downfall. It's like watching sombody fall off a cliff, and right before they fall, you give them a good kick, just to finish the job.

If anything, there were many circumstances which caused the downfall of the USSR, and I think Reagan gets the credit, but he did nothing more than occupy the position of President during their demise. Although I will give him credit for opening up talks with Goprbachev, and because of his charisma, Gorbachev trusted him. He felt like we wouldn't invade the USSR if he went through with his plans. Reagan did have a great aura about him, remember the teflon president?

SDI was a joke from day one. It was a welfare program for LM and Boeing, the start of the Military Industrial Complex. It cost the US almost 100Billion dollars and we gained only optical knowledge from the program, something that funding less than 1Billion from the NSF could have accomplished. It was a miserable failure.

[Om]

For record ... I'm real close to sending a couple of people to the time out chairs for a good long time. If you don't have enough respect for each other, or for the room, at least have enough for Henry, who's spent the last week busting his ass trying to clean this damn place up.

I'm serious, guys.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Om

For record ... I'm real close to sending a couple of people to the time out chairs for a good long time. If you don't have enough respect for each other, or for the room, at least have enough for Henry, who's spent the last week busting his ass trying to clean this damn place up.

I'm serious, guys.

It would help if you gave examples of what you consider to be over the top. I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but what some of may think is harmless jabbing my not translate as such to you or others.

[Dan T.]

One of Reagan's greatest legacies was his ability to disagree vehemently with someone politically, yet be friends with that person at the end of the day. Witness his long-lasting friendship with Tip O'Neill.

I heard someone quoting Reagan the other day, talking about O'Neill. Reagan said to Tip at a dinner or some such event "If we were to die at the same time, and reached the gates of heaven together, and St. Peter said that only one of us could enter into heaven, Tip, I would gladly go to hell with you."

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Destino

You forgot that liberals hate Jesus and want to eat your babies.

I think you have liberals and Tyson confused

[Om]

Originally posted by Destino

It would help if you gave examples of what you consider to be over the top. I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but what some of may think is harmless jabbing my not translate as such to you or others.

These are the two specific ones that jumped out, but know that when I read them, it was in context of what has happened to this forum over the past year or so, and what Henry has been banging his head against for the past week.

Jackson's Ward

where the f@ck do you see me blaming congress for AIDS are you that effing blind by your hatred of president reagan?

The numbers of what we "wasted" on a preventable disease during his administration is on public record so attempt to dismiss it all you like.

Those "illegal" ops in central america were legal depending on whose perspective you listen to and pro communist nicaraguans in their embassy have been sent back how many times because of fraud and spying?

Then again when has liberals sided against communism?

Heck Castro still gets rockstar statuc from the left.

I wouldn't have cared if he didn't spend a dime on AIDS. It was the result of pervs having deviant sex in bath houses. Why should I or anyone else pay for that? You want ot have homo sex, pay to find your own cure.

Here's the deal: we ARE going to clean this place up, and if it means taking posting privileges away from a bunch of regulars, by God we're going to do it. This is no longer going to be a bully pulpit for people on either side of the political spectrum to throw their politics in everyone else's face whenever and however they choose. And when we do have political discussions---even "spirited" ones---they are going to be conducted within both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines we've LONG since put in place here, but which a dismaying number of us don't seem to feel compelled to honor.

Anyone who cannot understand the difference between debate and nasty, mean-spirited arguement, and insists on forcing the moderators to get involved thread after thread, and day after day, is going to be invited to find another forum. It's that simple.

We'd much, MUCH rather not have to be the instrument of that change. We appeal to your better natures to do it for yourselves.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Dan T.

One of Reagan's greatest legacies was his ability to disagree vehemently with someone politically, yet be friends with that person at the end of the day. Witness his long-lasting friendship with Tip O'Neill.

I heard someone quoting Reagan the other day, talking about O'Neill. Reagan said to Tip at a dinner or some such event "If we were to die at the same time, and reached the gates of heaven together, and St. Peter said that only one of us could enter into heaven, Tip, I would gladly go to hell with you."

Absolutely. I didn't respect his policies, but I did respect his leadership. He was generally liked by both sides of the fence, even when people vehemently disagreed with his policies. Tip O'Neal and him were very good friends, and you're talking about two pwople with polar opposite viewpoints.

He had the ability to step out of his role as president and step into his role as friend and colleague. Something we've lacked in the role for quite some time. Clinton had some of it, but he was so disliked by the opposite side, they wouldn't bother to see this side of him.

It's one of the intangable qualities all good leaders have. In my lifetime, only Reagan and Clinton had the aura about them, it's probably why they're the only two termers as well.

[Cskin]

I heard one of his cabinet members talk about his first cabinet meeting. Reagan walked in... waited for everyone to settle down and give him the floor.... and he sternly said:

"Gentlemen and ladies, I hate inflation, I hate taxes, and I hate Communism. Do something about it." and turned and left the room.

That's hilarious!!!

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Cskin

I heard one of his cabinet members talk about his first cabinet meeting. Reagan walked in... waited for everyone to settle down and give him the floor.... and he sternly said:

"Gentlemen and ladies, I hate inflation, I hate taxes, and I hate Communism. Do something about it." and turned and left the room.

That's hilarious!!!

Good one, I can picture him doing that.