About the American Civilization......

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by MacTBone
...but guess what, no Pres. is perfect.

Of course not. Having not liked Reagan does not mean I did like Clinton! I just think Reagan is very overrated. All our leaders do good and bad. I suspect more of the latter than the former, but then I'm a bit of a sourpuss in that regard. Clinton had fortunate circumstance on his side, but he obviously didn't capitalize on that as well as he could have.

[Sava]

Originally posted by jsw363
Reagan was a GREAT president. I think that his decision to fire the air traffic controllers was a GOOD one. That single decision shifted the balance of power between labor and management forever. It allowed companies to fire workers, adapt to the information revolution and then hire more workers. As a result millions of jobs were eliminated, BUT also millions of jobs were created, helping thrust America into the economic expansion of the 90's.

I have been reading some of your posts and I really wonder about you.

Reagan was in the middle stages of Alzheimers disease BEFORE he was president. Reagen was the WORST president this country has ever had, maybe next to the current one. Republicans in general are bad presidents.

Reagan cut taxes so that the upper 1 percent of the population got richer, and everybody else got poorer. He allowed companies the freedom to make insane amounts of money, fire hundreds of workers just so the CEO's could make an extra million or two, and on top of that, the guy waste trillions of dollars on stupid defense plans. Reagan's foreign policies weren't that terrible, he did put in motion the end of Communism in Russia by forcing the arms race to bankrupt Russia, but there were much better ways that much better and smarter Democrats of the time wanted to go about bringing down Communism in Russia.

Had Ronald Reagan not been our president, the Soviet Union would have been broken up much earlier, oil prices would not be as high, the super rich would not be as super rich, many more people would have had jobs in the 80's, and technology would be ahead of where it is today. By pushing the breakup of AT&T, you have created companies that do not offer low priced reliable service, but mini-monopolies that charge insanely high per minute rates in order to further rape America of its wealth.

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


I have been reading some of your posts and I really wonder about you.

I,m not a 100% behind Reagan but I really wonder about you.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I have been reading some of your posts and I really wonder about you.

No need to resort to ad hominem attacks. I wonder about lots of these people. I just don't say it out loud.

I guess that I am to understand from your post that you are liberal. I am writing this just so that you realize that you need to think more about your opinions in some cases. Some of your information is inaccurate.

Reagan cut taxes so that the upper 1 percent of the population got richer, and everybody else got poorer.

I know that you were too young to remember the tax cuts (sorry, I checked ). So here's the truth. Reagan first proposed a 30%, across the board (i.e., for all taxpayers), tax rate cut during the 1980 primary campaign. He was able to sign into law the tax cuts in late 1981 after an attempt by congressional Democrats to block the cuts (i.e. "gridlock") failed... but at the reduced rate of 25%, and an effective rate of 23% since the cuts would be over three years (5% in 1981, retroactive; 10% for 1982; 10% for 1983). The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

No I didn't make this up. It's not some conservative conspiracy. I got it from the webpage of the US Congress. The link is below.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm

Reagan's foreign policies weren't that terrible, he did put in motion the end of Communism in Russia by forcing the arms race to bankrupt Russia, but there were much better ways that much better and smarter Democrats of the time wanted to go about bringing down Communism in Russia.

Glad that you admit that he had some good points. The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR, according to Gorbachev.

By pushing the breakup of AT&T, you have created companies that do not offer low priced reliable service, but mini-monopolies that charge insanely high per minute rates in order to further rape America of its wealth.

Sorry you have high long distance charges. Maybe you should switch to Sprint.

[civcop]

It is difficult, nay impossible, to argue against the facts. Still, liberals in the U.S. attempt to do so. You correctly state the facts surrounding Reagan's tax cut. George W. Bush's tax cut is similar, yet our liberal friends would have us believe that it only benefits the wealthy.

Futher facts:
Republicans in the Congress were responsible for the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Democrats tried to block it. Al Gore's father voted against it. LBJ relied on Republican congressmen to get the bill through.

Reagan is on the short list of best Presidents in the modern era. I happen to believe he was the best of the 20th century, but that is just my pragmatic, conservative opinion.

Clinton not only gave red China military technology, but he gave our military short shrift. Who are we relying on in the near future to avenge our nation? It isn't the red Chinese. It isn't "Lonely" Bill Clinton either (lonely enough to stroll down the streets of N.Y. to get in the public eye again). Who is having to stare down a national catastrophe while simultaneously building up our military? None other than George W. Bush. Get behind him...it's your patriotic duty. We conservatives would have done it for Clinton or (God help us) President Gore.

And if jsw is correct in realizing by your birth date that you are not old enough to understand the Reagan era, then upon what are you basing your view? It surely isn't historical fact. Liberals are like goody huts filled with a swarm of Barbarians. They look promising on the outside, but open them up and you find that all they want to do is fight and take your gold.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Grouping people together and labelling them "liberals" is another thing that we owe to Reagan. It's so much easier to lambast an opposing opinion if you lump all naysayers into a stereotype and oversimplify "their" stance. Doing this can lead to nothing but inaccurate statements, whatever your position.

Civcop, both parties worked the Civil Rights Act thru congress. For one party to take credit at the expense of the other is nonsense.

Jsw363, if you think Reagan's blast against labor was good, you simply must not understand the history of organized labor in the US. The existence of the minimum wage, 15 minute breaks, the 40 hr work week, on-the-job safety requirements, benefits of ALL kinds, etc, etc, etc, are all due to the efforts of organized labor. It saddens me when I hear unions badmouthed by people (no, I'm not a union member). Unless you live on someone else's tab, you owe organized labor a huge thank you. Yes, time rolls on. Some unions get corrupt, some wallow in worthlessness. But as a whole, organized labor is a good thing.

I suppose you'll now brand me a "liberal." We (hopefully) are all critically thinking people who have some differing opinions. Think before ignorantly stereotyping, it undermines any point you try to make.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Grouping people together and labelling them "liberals" is another thing that we owe to Reagan. It's so much easier to lambast an opposing opinion if you lump all naysayers into a stereotype and oversimplify "their" stance. Doing this can lead to nothing but inaccurate statements, whatever your position.

I suppose you'll now brand me a "liberal." We (hopefully) are all critically thinking people who have some differing opinions. Think before ignorantly stereotyping, it undermines any point you try to make.

Marquis- So typically liberal (kidding) . I don't think I engage in "ignorant stereotyping." If you read my post closely, you'll see that I am encourage people to break free from the labels. I wrote:"I am writing this just so that you realize that you need to think more about your opinions in some cases. Some of your information is inaccurate." I was encouraging SoulAssassin to examine his beliefs more closely. I didn't "lump all naysayers into a stereotype" I made a hesitant suggestion about the political leanings of ONE individual. Please don't exaggerate my statements.

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Jsw363, if you think Reagan's blast against labor was good, you simply must not understand the history of organized labor in the US. The existence of the minimum wage, 15 minute breaks, the 40 hr work week, on-the-job safety requirements, benefits of ALL kinds, etc, etc, etc, are all due to the efforts of organized labor. It saddens me when I hear unions badmouthed by people (no, I'm not a union member).

I said that: "I think that his decision to fire the air traffic controllers was a GOOD one. "I never mentioned labor or unions in general and did not "badmouth" unions, as you allege. I didn't discuss the history of labor unions, whether or not they were beneficial to this country or anything else. I talked about one decision made by our former president.

I am all for intellectual discussions of the issues free from labels and personal attacks. I wish we could stick to discussing issues, though this is wildly OT.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

jsw363, the stereotyping comment was more directed at civcop's response, but this wasn't so clear in my post, sorry.

Regarding unions, I guess I connected the air traffic controllers (org. labor group) getting canned with your comments about what it led to: easier firing, shifting the balance of power (back to management), and allowing business adaptation. The first two points are directly contrary to the purpose of unions; The third is questionably tied exclusively to weakening labor's positiong. Yes, you mentioned it only as one anecdote, but seeing it as a general anti-labor position led me to my statement. I stand corrected!

Yeah, this is really off topic now. Somebody steer this back to its original topic!

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by static
Clinton - Yeah, I know what your thinking, but when he took office our nation was in a reccession, headed for a depression. His handling of the price of oil was amazing, really. With cheaper oil our industries surged back on their feet, and his administration was key for the expansion of the internet(No, Al Gore didn't invent it. ). America had it greatest economic boom, by far, under his presidency. And you can't forget about him getting 'favors' from an intern while on the phone with senators.

...please tell me you're joking. Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Sure, he was a smooth talker, but he sucked as a leader. He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time. He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general. "His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan. Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful.

For male leader, George Washington is my favorite. For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson. Then I would play against America a lot, set her as the leader, and go to the diplomacy screen with America whenever I wanted to see a pretty face .

[jsw363]

Marquis- We cool.

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
...please tell me you're joking. Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Sure, he was a smooth talker, but he sucked as a leader. He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time. He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general. "His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan. Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful.

Guess we're back on topic....

For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson. Then I would play against America a lot, set her as the leader, and go to the diplomacy screen with America whenever I wanted to see a pretty face .

[Warm Beer]

I read this thread with great amusement and interest. As a matter of fact, being a Liberal (a North West one at that ), I thought I should educate some of the more conservative folks in this thread with some Leftist propoganda.

But then, after reading jsw363's comment on staying on topic, I thought I'd add some good ol' fashioned bi-partisan co-operation to the discussion and keep my political idology out of this thread (well, mostly at least)

As far as being on topic, the female default leader in Civ III seems to be a moot point, seeing how there will be only one default leader per civiliation and that the USA has only had one gender in the Oval Office: Male.

As far as the Reagan vs Clinton debate... they're both schumcks (for very different reasons, I must add), but no need to go into that any further here.
On Ranking the Presidents, the study that was linked above was sponsored by the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal- VERY conservative groups... the Federalist Society, notoriously so- hence the High ranking of Reagan.

Geez I thought I was back on topic for a minute there...

Clinton was worthless. Payed alot of lip service to liberal causes, then signs the CDC, the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act, and so on. And before ANYONE jumps my case about opposing something called the "anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act" please reflect on the following. That law has not stopped one single terrorist - what it has done is denied habeus corpus to poor and underrepresented defendants as well as authorizing secret evidence. Secret evidence! How much more taliban-like can one get! I thought this was America . . .

Eisenhower was brilliant. He knew when NOT to do things (sounds funny coming from a liberal I know, but sometimes our libertarian brothers are correct that no government intervention is called for).

Madison would make a great leader for Civ because he designed the Consitution. For me, however, FDR will always remain the guy who opened concentration camps in America. He may have done alot of good, but the camps were an atrocity - a crime against humanity - and that can't be swept under the rug.

[static]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus


...please tell me you're joking. Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Sure, he was a smooth talker, but he sucked as a leader. He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time. He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general. "His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan. Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful.

For male leader, George Washington is my favorite. For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson. Then I would play against America a lot, set her as the leader, and go to the diplomacy screen with America whenever I wanted to see a pretty face .

Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history???
So your saying he's worst than George Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ford, Nixon, L.B.J???

He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time???
Oh, he's the reason... I stupidly thought abuse of drugs(illegal and legal), parental neglect, lack of responsibility(The it's somebody else's fault syndrome), scummy lawyers, bad movie sequels, and Barbra Streisand music, were the causes of moral decline...

He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general???
So Jefferson who had slaves(and had affairs with them), and Nixon(need I say more..) never made anyone lose respect? I will agree that Clinton personally was scum, but MANY other presidents were.

"His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan.
First off, Greenspan wasn't involved in oil. Second, perhaps I did overstate his influence, but the diplomatic relations we had with OPEC countries were instrumental with the low price of oil in the 90's.

Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful???
Like George Bush and his advisors that led us into a recession .

For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson.
Now that's something everyone can agree on.

[static]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Clinton was worthless. Payed alot of lip service to liberal causes, then signs the CDC, the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act, and so on. And before ANYONE jumps my case about opposing something called the "anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act" please reflect on the following. That law has not stopped one single terrorist - what it has done is denied habeus corpus to poor and underrepresented defendants as well as authorizing secret evidence. Secret evidence! How much more taliban-like can one get! I thought this was America . . .

Eisenhower was brilliant. He knew when NOT to do things (sounds funny coming from a liberal I know, but sometimes our libertarian brothers are correct that no government intervention is called for).

Madison would make a great leader for Civ because he designed the Consitution. For me, however, FDR will always remain the guy who opened concentration camps in America. He may have done alot of good, but the camps were an atrocity - a crime against humanity - and that can't be swept under the rug.

Clinton was worthless...???
He was alot of things, but worthless wasn't one of them.

That law has not stopped one single terrorist???
How do you know this? There are secret investigations that the public has no idea about going on everyday.

Eisenhower was brilliant???
Has public education gotten this bad . Name ONE thing that makes him so. It is common knowledge that the presidents who were former generals, made lousy presidents.

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
(sounds funny coming from a liberal I know, but sometimes our libertarian brothers are correct that no government intervention is called for).

Why must everyone call themselves "liberals" and "conservatives". A great man once said:

Originally posted by static
If people stopped calling themselves Democrats, Republicans, Liberals,Conservatives, etc.........., and we just called ourselves AMERICANS, then I think things would be much better.

Oh wait, that was me...

Originally posted by static

He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general???
So Jefferson who had slaves(and had affairs with them), and Nixon(need I say more..) never made anyone lose respect? I will agree that Clinton personally was scum, but MANY other presidents were.

Some of our so-called experts now say Jefferson's brother may have been the Father of those children. Actually we don't know what the truce is, btw who cares. Jefferson died in 1826 and that was a 175 years ago. Clinton is still alive I think or did he pass away last night?

Like George Bush and his advisors that led us into a recession

Iraq invaded Kuwait, that started the recession. The Public stopped buying overnight.

[static]

Originally posted by joseph1944

Some of our so-called experts now say Jefferson's brother may have been the Father of those children. Actually we don't know what the truce is, btw who cares. Jefferson died in 1826 and that was a 175 years ago. Clinton is still alive I think or did he pass away last night?


Iraq invaded Kuwait, that started the recession. The Public stopped buying overnight.

Jefferson was rumored of this affair since he was in office, a few years back DNA proved he did. There is no reason to think his brother had an affair with Hemings.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/...jefferson.html
My point was that most presidents have had scandals, or some unsavory activity(they are politicians after all), and that Clinton's kind of problems have gone on since the beginning of the country.

Iraq invading Kuwait, started the recession???
How about HIGH unemployment, lack of investment in new technologies, and a president with a poor domestic policy. Bush handled the Gulf War nicely, but not the economy. "Read my lips, NO new taxes..."

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Look you guys, this is all OT

As for Civ leader, I think that Firaxis had to choose between Washington, Lincoln, and FDR (who are all from the left, should I add)

They choose Lincoln because Sid is a Civil War buff. FDR was by far the best president.

[mactbone]

Lincoln was the first Republican though, if you recall.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The man was a senile, doddering old fool. The national debt grew an average of 23.6% per year under his tenure, almost twice as fast as under his nearest competitor. His defense spending funded a boom which had to be paid for by the late 80s bust.

Check the avatar? Want a war?

Why did the national debt grow? Perhaps because of his and CIA Director Colby's plan to spend the Soviets into ruin. Hmmm, and it seemed to work too, didn't it? You could really see the cracks when the USSR had to increase military spending to match the US. And I wonder where you get this idea of a late 80s bust? The crash of '87? You mean the one that was reversed within a few weeks?

Any bust came in '91-'92, caused by President Bush's tax hikes, which decreased disposable income going into the economy in the form of consumption.

And yes, 8th, by a smattering of historians, law professors, and economists.

Eisenhower was brilliant???

Yes, brilliant is a good term. Talk to the history department of your nearest University 8/10 of the professors will say Eisenhower was one of the better Presidents in the US during the 20th Century. This is one thing conservatives and liberals agree one. Eisenhower's backing of the Interstate Highway Act, and his (reluctant, admittedly) sending in of the National Guard to Little Rock were two domestic wonders.

His foriegn policy was even better. He knew how to deal with the Soviets and did so very well. As stated, he knew what NOT to do!

It is common knowledge that the presidents who were former generals, made lousy presidents.

I didn't know that George Washington was a lousy President! What do you have to base this on? Grant? One General turned President is not so hot so they all suck?

the Federalist Society, notoriously so- hence the High ranking of Reagan.

Read the methodology? Or just see Federalist Society and your bias kicked in?

They choose Lincoln because Sid is a Civil War buff. FDR was by far the best president.

Yeah, nothing like concentration camps during World War 2 to prove the rightness of the national cause. "But FDR got the people working again!" you say? So did Hitler and Pinochet. What great company for an American president to keep.

Sure, Lincoln was the first Republican president. But that's when religion in politics meant realizing Jesus wouldn't have owned slaves. Then the Republicans got taken over by Dixiecrat cast-offs from the Dems like Thurman and Helms - who apparently view african-americans as some form of obscelete farm equipment. (Thurman and Helms BOTH supported segregation! And they still got elected? The Carolinas must have too much lead in the water.)

[static]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

It is common knowledge that the presidents who were former generals, made lousy presidents.

I didn't know that George Washington was a lousy President! What do you have to base this on? Grant? One General turned President is not so hot so they all suck?

I completely overlooked George Washington as a former general, I guess I was so focused on Grant and Eisenhower that I forgot the most famous general of them all. I put Washington in my Top 3 which is a toss-up of Lincoln, Washington, and F.D.R.(My guess is Washington will be a Great Military Leader).

As for Eisenhower , I guess we will have to disagree.

I agree with you on Reagan, he was a good president, especially on foreign matters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Remember, Ike also warned us about the Military/Industrial Complex. Imagine a President having such balls today !

[KrazyHorse]

Ike warned us about it, but Reagan managed to build it.

How 'bout the late 80s bust that lasted until the mid 90s?

[Warm Beer]

the Federalist Society, notoriously so- hence the High ranking of Reagan.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Read the methodology? Or just see Federalist Society and your bias kicked in?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did read the methodology. I am quite certain if the ACLU and the Washington Post sponsored the same study, Reagan and Ike would not be nearly as prominate on the list.

Out of 130 scholars chosen, only 60% of them responded, it is very likely that the ones who chose not to respond were the more liberal ones. I'm sure the same could be said of conservatives for the theoretical ACLU/Washington Post study. OTOH, I'm have no concrete evidence to support this, but, as far a conjecture goes, I think it's a fairly sound deduction.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

In the 19th century, being a Republican meant being from the left, todays Democrats. The Democrats back then were todays Republicans. THey made a switch in names around the turn of the century.

Washington was a Federalist, which means that he supported a strong government. This idea is from the left also.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

How 'bout the late 80s bust that lasted until the mid 90s?

Where did you pull that out of? (be clean.)

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by static
Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history???
So your saying he's worst than George Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ford, Nixon, L.B.J???

ummm....yeah.

Originally posted by static
He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time???
Oh, he's the reason... I stupidly thought abuse of drugs(illegal and legal), parental neglect, lack of responsibility(The it's somebody else's fault syndrome), scummy lawyers, bad movie sequels, and Barbra Streisand music, were the causes of moral decline...

Don't get me wrong, those definitely helped Clinton out quite a bit.

Originally posted by static
He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general???
So Jefferson who had slaves(and had affairs with them), and Nixon(need I say more..) never made anyone lose respect? I will agree that Clinton personally was scum, but MANY other presidents were.

Jefferson doesn't count so much; he was pre-Civil War. At least Nixon had the decency to resign.

Originally posted by static
"His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan.
First off, Greenspan wasn't involved in oil. Second, perhaps I did overstate his influence, but the diplomatic relations we had with OPEC countries were instrumental with the low price of oil in the 90's.

Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful???
Like George Bush and his advisors that led us into a recession .

OK, I was wrong, but so are you. The truth is that the economy is not controlled by any Prez (Clinton or Bush). Those scum-suckers just always take credit for it when it does well :cough: Clinton :cough:. Greenspan didn't do so well when Bush was Prez. Consumers weren't too confident either.

Originally posted by static
For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson.
Now that's something everyone can agree on.

Yes, all in favor of making Jessica Simpson female leader of the Americans in Civ4 say, "I". And the I's have it!

[Oerdin]

I must admite it was racist but the main reason the Black Army Air Corp unit didn't lose a single bomber was because they weren't allowed to fly against 1st or even 2nd order targets until the very end of the war. The white officer corp felt that to send black aviators up against defended German positions would only result in the destruction of U.S. aircraft. As a result the black unit never went head to head with Germany's best units.
Heck, they didn't even get to do a bombing mission over Berlin until a month or two before the Naxis surrendered. By then German air defences had been destroyed by 6 years of war. Sorry for an off topic post.

Originally posted by joseph1944

Maybe a lot of you don't know that Mrs. Roosevelt was one of the reason that the Black flyer had a change to fight during WW II to show how good they could be.
It is now a matter of records that they while flying cover for our Bomber, they never aloud one Bomber to be shot down by the German Air Force. No other Fighter Command can claim that.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Greatest economic boom. The economic boom was alrady gaining strength s he went in to office. He merely didn't do anything to hinder it.

Sometimes having a polition who knows how to leave well enough alone is what makes him great.

[Madine]

Reagan wanted to reduce domestic spending, but the Democratic House of Representatives wouldn't allow it. Liberals who blame him for the deficits of the 80s are hypocritical.

Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!

Perhaps only a senile person would stand up to the Soviet Union.

I think that Clinton will end up being remembered mainly for scandal and controversy and not for any political achivements.

Eisenhower wasn't brilliant or a great speaker, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good president. His main strength as a military leader and as a president was that he was able to delegate responsiblity to people.