P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-06-04, 06:08 AM   #1
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default Nails for Ronnie

In dismay over the week-long maudlin, drunken National self-flagellation we on the left must endure over the passing of the Cult of Personality that was Ronnie Raygun I forward this fine piece....

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.juancole.com/

Sunday, June 06, 2004
Reagan's Passing

I did not say anything yesterday about Ronald Reagan's death. The day a person dies he has a right to be left alone.

But yesterday is now history, and Reagan's legacy should not pass without comment.

Reagan had an ability to project a kindly image, and was well liked personally by virtually everyone who knew him, apparently. But it always struck me that he was a mean man. I remember learning, in the late 1960s, of the impact Michael Harrington's The Other America had had on Johnson's War on Poverty. Harrington demonstrated that in the early 1960s there was still hunger in places like Appalachia, deriving from poverty. It was hard for middle class Americans to believe, and Lyndon Johnson, who represented many poor people himself, was galvanized to take action.

I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?

Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.

The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.

Reagan's mania to abolish social security was of a piece with this kind of sentiment. In the early 20th century, the old were the poorest sector of the American population. The horrors of old age--increasing sickness, loss of faculties, marginalization and ultimately death--were in that era accompanied by fear of severe poverty. Social security turned that around. The elderly are no longer generally poverty-stricken. The government can do something significant to improve people's lives. Reagan, philosophically speaking, hated the idea of state-directed redistribution of societal wealth. (His practical policies often resulted in such redistribution de facto, usually that of tossing money to the already wealthy). So he wanted to abolish social security and throw us all back into poverty in old age.

Reagan hated any social arrangement that empowered the poor and the weak. He was a hired gun for big corporations in the late 1950s, when he went around arguing against unionization. Among his achievements in office was to break the air traffic controllers' union. It was not important in and of itself, but it was a symbol of his determination that the powerless would not be allowed to organize to get a better deal. He ruined a lot of lives. I doubt he made us safer in the air.

Reagan hated environmentalism. His administration was not so mendacious as to deny the problems of increased ultraviolet radition (from a depleted ozone layer) and global warming. His government suggested people wear sunglasses and hats in response. At one point Reagan suggested that trees cause pollution. He was not completely wrong (natural processes can cause pollution), but his purpose in making the statement seems to have been that we should therefore just accept lung cancer from bad city air, which was caused by automobiles and industry, not by trees.

In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived long, Reagan's global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary. The argument that Reagan's increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending was flat in the 1980s.

Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right.

Reagan's officials so hated the Sandinista populists in Nicaragua that they shredded the constitution. Congress cut off money for the rightwing death squads fighting the Sandinistas. Reagan's people therefore needed funds to continue to run the rightwing insurgency. They came up with a complicated plan of stealing Pentagon equipment, shipping it to Khomeini in Iran, illegally taking payment from Iran for the weaponry, and then giving the money to the rightwing guerrillas in Central America. At the same time, they pressured Khomeini to get US hostages in Lebanon, taken by radical Shiites there, released. It was a criminal cartel inside the US government, and Reagan allowed it, either through collusion or inattention. It is not a shining legacy, to have helped Khomeini and then used the money he gave them to support highly unsavory forces in Central America. (Some of those forces were involved after all in killing leftwing nuns).

Although Reagan's people were willing to shore up Iranian defenses during the Iran-Iraq War, so as to prevent a total Iraqi victory, they also wanted to stop Iran from taking over Iraq. They therefore winked at Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Reagan's secretary of state, George Schultz, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad twice, the second time with an explicit secret message that the US did not really mind if Saddam gassed the Iranian troops, whatever it said publicly.

I only saw Reagan once in person. I was invited to a State Department conference on religious freedom, I think in 1986. It was presided over by Elliot Abrams, whom I met then for the first time. We were taken to hear Reagan speak on religious freedom. It was a cause I could support, but I came away strangely dissatisfied. I had a sense that "religious freedom" was being used as a stick to beat those regimes the Reagan administration did not like. It wasn't as though the plight of the Moro Muslims in the Philippines was foremost on the agenda (come to think of it, perhaps no Muslims or Muslim groups were involved in the conference).

Reagan's policies thus bequeathed to us the major problems we now have in the world, including a militant Islamist International whose skills were honed in Afghanistan with Reagan's blessing and monetary support; and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which the Reagan administration in some cases actually encouraged behind the scenes for short-term policy reasons. His aggressive foreign policy orientation has been revived and expanded, making the US into a neocolonial power in the Middle East. Reagan's gutting of the unions and attempt to remove social supports for the poor and the middle class has contributed to the creation of an America where most people barely get by while government programs that could help create wealth are destroyed.

Reagan's later life was debilitated by Alzheimer's. I suppose he may already have had some symptoms while president, which might explain some of his memory lapses and odd statements, and occasional public lapses into woolly-mindedness. Ironically, Alzheimer's could be cured potentially by stem cell research. In the United States, where superstition reigns over reason, the religious Right that Reagan cultivated has put severe limits on such research. His best legacy may be Nancy Reagan's argument that those limitations should be removed in his memory. There are 4 million Alzheimers sufferers in the US, and 50% of persons living beyond the age of 85 develop it. There are going to be a lot of such persons among the Baby Boomers. By reversing Reaganism, we may be able to avoid his fate.


posted by Juan @ 6/6/2004 12:57:54 PM
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-04, 01:15 PM   #2
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default Some visual aids....

Remember us Ronnie?
Attached Images
 
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-04, 01:20 PM   #3
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default See those clouds Ronnie?

It was too cold to fly that bitter January day, but you insisted, you pulled rank on NASA so you would have a "patriotic" backdrop to your speech the next day....
Attached Images
 
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-04, 01:32 PM   #4
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default Here we lay ronnie....

We died horribly due to your reckless disregard for the truth. (It seems to afflict all you republicans don't it Ronnie?) That's OK, we're in Devine Consciousness now Ronnie, where are you Ronnie?
Attached Images
 
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-04, 02:32 PM   #5
floydian slip
===\/------/\===
 
floydian slip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
Default

you go Heathcliff

dont forget that the Iran hostages could have been released sooner but had to wait for inauguration day to make it look like ronnie was a hero. ya know... the Iran contra thing. Rumsfeld went to Iraq shortly after to shake hands with saddam and give them some WMD. Thanks for saving us from greneda.
floydian slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-04, 06:11 PM   #6
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default Wow

I'm sure u can find much more to blame RR for..

How about the black plague, why do women live longer than men, how come there is no social protection for left-handed people.

It's that fuc head Regan's fault. Hahahahahahahahaa

U sound like a person who is on the govmn't dole and want more "services" BUT won't work.

And now that there seems to be enough of you, u're gonna vote your job.


Hahahahaha x 2 productive peeps will just quit supporting lazy trash.

Time will tell ~ won't it........
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-04, 09:27 PM   #7
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default I'm sure u can find much more to blame RR for..

Right you are Sir, I shall continue to counter-counter revolutionize until that Fraud is stinking up some hole in the ground.

And since you brought up being on the dole I'll continue with that.

It's certainly true that nobody loves socialism more than right-wingers, and Saint Ronnie (to you) was no exception in liberally doling it out to his rich corporate benefactors. In fact he loved it so much he gave his War Pigs over at the House Of Fun (the Pentagon) $250 Billion for their sweet, sweet off-shore bank accounts and was so kind as to keep it right out of the accounting books so nobody could embarrass him with his generosity.

Let's see, with that kind of money the 50 million trash that voted for Gore could all get $5000 each to sit on their ass and eat jelly beans.

...or how about this: put bases on the moon, Mars And whole new fleet of Space Shuttles (and provide for the dearly departed ones families for life). Oh but now I'm ranting on and on...

Next please.

@floyd "The wheel goes round, does it not?

__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 08:59 AM   #8
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicobie
I'm sure u can find much more to blame RR for..


I was wondering why the Bush Bashing Stopped....maybe because Bush is still alive, guess it is easier for liberals to attack the dead. They can't defend themselves.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 09:49 AM   #9
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Makes 'em feel better to put down others...especially from the safety of the internet.

The more powerful and popular their subject, the bigger the rush.

Insulting and slandering Reagan must make them cum in their pants.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 11:07 AM   #10
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
GrinNo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner
I was wondering why the Bush Bashing Stopped....maybe because Bush is still alive, guess it is easier for liberals to attack the dead. They can't defend themselves.
No, by asserting the truth in the face of overwhelming popular disapproval we are displaying courage. It's not attacking and it's not negativity. It's setting things right.


And also by deconstructing the Reagan Revolution we are helping bring down Bush and his White Trash Zombies. (that's negativity)
There is some subtlety involved you see... (that's sarcasm)


Oh look, here we come again
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 11:08 AM   #11
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default

http://wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/reag-j09.shtml

Ronald Reagan (1911-2004): An Obituary
By David North
9 June 2004
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

His Grace! impossible! what, dead?
Of old age too, and in his bed! ...
Twas time in conscience he should die!
This world he cumber’d long enough;
He burnt his candle to the snuff;
And that’s the reason, some folks think,
He left behind so great a stink.”

Jonathan Swift, from A Satirical Elegy on the Death of a Late Famous General

It was inevitable that the death of Ronald Reagan, when it finally came, would be greeted with an effusion of saccharine tributes to the 40th President of the United States. But nothing could have quite prepared the innocent bystander for the eruption of dishonest, cynical and preposterously stupid propaganda with which the media and political establishment have responded to the death of Reagan. Of course, given the unending stream of bad news pouring out of Iraq and other parts of the real world during the past year, the Bush administration and its friends in the media were looking desperately for some way to change the subject and counter the increasingly depressed and surly mood in the country. The memorial celebrations of the 60th anniversary of D-Day were intended originally to create that diversion. But the timely death of Reagan has provided an even greater opportunity for an explosion of media-sponsored hero-worshipping, flag-waving and mythmaking.

One is compelled to admit that there is nothing quite so awesome to behold as the total mobilization of the American media. Since the announcement of Reagan’s death on Saturday, the massive weight of this propaganda machine has been set into motion in what amounts to a vast exercise in historical falsification. The modern media version of the air brush is being applied to the years of the Reagan administration. The social misery in the United States caused by Reagan’s policies; the tens of thousands of lives lost in Central America at the hands of fascist death squads funded illegally by his government; the rampant criminality in an administration that was the most corrupt in 20th century America—all this and other similarly smelly details are being more or less ignored. One reads nothing of his defense of apartheid in South Africa, his funding of countless right-wing dictatorships, or even of his tribute to SS soldiers buried in a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany. The media strives not only to suppress any objective appraisal of Reagan’s life and political career, but even to censor reference to the more unsavory elements of his administration’s policies.

The aim of this unrelenting propaganda is not only to mislead and confuse, but also to intimidate public opinion, that is, to foster a sense of political and social isolation among countless Americans who despised Reagan and everything he represented, to create in their minds, if not doubt about their own judgment, then at least a sense of futility about the prospects for dissenting views in the United States.

But the entire affair—the five days of official mourning, the endless media coverage, the spectacle of a state funeral—leaves the country cold. On Monday morning, in the schools, in offices and factories, there was little indication that the citizenry felt that they had witnessed the passing of a great and significant man, that they, as individuals and as a people, had suffered a genuine loss. For those old enough to remember the death of Roosevelt, let alone that of Kennedy, the contrast could not have been starker. Yes, those men, too, were bourgeois politicians and defenders of the existing social order. But Roosevelt and Kennedy had with genuine eloquence given voice, at different stages of their political careers, to the democratic aspirations of the working class and other oppressed strata of American society; and won for themselves an affection that was deeply felt. Real tears were shed when those men died.

But for the great mass of ordinary working people, the death of Ronald Reagan is a non-event. It makes no claim whatever upon their emotions. This is not only because Reagan had been out of the public eye for a decade, since the announcement that he was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. Too many working people still remember the impact of “Reaganomics” on their lives, which was entirely for the worse. Indeed, among broad sections of the working class he was the most hated president since Herbert Hoover. Even taking into account the support for Reaganism among significant sections of the middle class and more affluent layers of workers, the overwhelming popularity attributed to Reagan was largely of a synthetic character, a myth concocted by the media to endow the policies of his administration with an aura of public approval that they lacked in reality.

As the media repackages history to serve the purposes of the ruling elite, no mention is made of the fact that the 1980s was the decade that witnessed the most bitter episodes of class struggle in the United States since the 1940s. The actions taken by the Reagan administration during its first year in office—the slashing of federal funding for vital social programs and the firing of nearly 12,000 air traffic controllers who went out on strike in August 1981—outraged millions of workers. The social philosophy of the new administration found its most poignant expression in the redefinition of ketchup as a vegetable in order to justify the cutting of federal funds for school lunch programs. In September 1981, nearly three-quarters of a million workers demonstrated in Washington to protest budget cuts and the destruction of PATCO, the union of the air traffic controllers. An even larger demonstration took place in Washington in 1983. Virtually every industry was shaken by bitter and often violent strikes as workers fought back against the class war policies of the Reagan administration.

But that history has no place in the on-going eulogies to the dead president. These tributes to Reagan are, in essence, a celebration of the services he rendered to the rich. The overriding goal of his administration was the removal of all legal restraints on the accumulation of personal wealth. The motto of the Reagan administration, like that of the notoriously corrupt government of King Louis-Philippe in 19th century France, was “Enrich yourself.” The slashing of tax rate for the wealthy—from 70 percent to 28 percent—earned for the president the boundless affection of the grateful rich. This massive cut in taxes laid the foundations for the environment of social debauchery and orgiastic celebration of wealth that characterized the 1980s. It was the decade of Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Donald Trump (who is now making a comeback), and, of course, the fictional Gordon Gekko, who so famously proclaimed, “Greed is good”!

Reagan is eulogized endlessly as the “Great Communicator.” This is the moniker bestowed on him by a media controlled by rich philistines who enjoyed hearing their self-serving platitudes mouthed by the president. The typical Reagan speech was a mixture of hokum, bunkum, flapdoodle and balderdash of the type dished out daily by motivational speakers, along with mashed potatoes and turgid chicken breasts, at countless business luncheons in the Marriotts, Hyatts and Hiltons of America. The same sort of language turned Warren Harding—the 29th President who most resembles Reagan, in both physical appearance and intellectual capacity—into a national laughing stock.

But what sort of man was Reagan himself? Even his most ardent admirers are hard pressed to identify those elements of his personality and character that were in any way unusual, let alone outstanding. His official biographer, Edmond Morris, became so frustrated in his search for the “real” Reagan, the essential man behind the public persona, that he felt compelled to resort to the devices of fiction writing.

The biographer was confounded by the sheer shallowness of his subject. Watch, if you have a chance, Reagan’s movies. The pedestrian work of the actor revealed not a trace of creative imagination. The most remarkable feature of his acting was the utter absence of emotional depth. A more sensitive and empathetic man would have found in his own early life—the son of an alcoholic father, reared in the stultifying environment of small town Dixon, Illinois, beneath the shadow of impending financial calamity—sufficient material for dramatic insight into the human predicament. Reagan, however, operated in the realm of the obvious. His acting repertoire consisted of a tool-kit of predictable gestures, which he called upon as required by the dramatic situation. If his character needed to express perturbation, Reagan furrowed his brow. Anger was conveyed by the stiffening of facial muscles. He was also able to project a certain amount of boyish charm, at least into the early 1940s. But then, as he entered middle age, Reagan’s career had begun to stagnate.

During his first decade in Hollywood, Reagan was, if we accept his own description, a “hemophiliac” liberal and supporter of Roosevelt. He never offered a credible explanation for the dramatic change in his political views, but it seems to have developed as something of a visceral and angry reaction to the decline of his acting career in the late 1940s. The rightward-shifting winds of the period gave him an opportunity to strike back at high-brow “Reds” among directors and screenwriters who had failed to provide him with the roles to which he felt entitled. This was the real emotional background to Reagan’s involvement in the anti-communist Hollywood witchhunts of the late 1940s and early 1950s. Though he publicly denied naming names of suspected members of the Communist Party, it has since been established conclusively that he secretly provided information to the FBI. To Reagan’s anger over the failure of his acting career was added resentment over claims made by the Internal Revenue Service on his personal income. These emotions were genuine and deeply felt, and this enabled Reagan to articulate, with a sincerity lacking in all his screen roles, the frustrations and resentments of broader sections of the middle class in the California of the early 1960s.

Notwithstanding his election as governor of California in 1966, his pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination ended in failure twice prior to his success in 1980. But even then, his election to the presidency would have been inconceivable but for the political bankruptcy of American liberalism and the Democratic Party. While the Vietnam War left liberalism and the Democratic Party morally discredited, the worsening economic conditions of the 1970s, eroded the foundations which had sustained the limited social reformism of the Roosevelt administration and his Democratic successors.

During the four years of the Carter administration, the Democratic Party had destroyed whatever was left of its reputation as the party of social progress and reform. While broad layers of the middle class were alienated by inflation, which intensified their resentment of taxes and social welfare programs, the Carter administration adopted an openly hostile attitude toward the working class, exemplified by its invocation of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1978 in an attempt to break the powerful coal miners’ strike of 1977-78.

The prostration of the Democratic Party cleared the way for Reagan’s election in 1980. But the future successes of this administration would not have been possible without the role played by the AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, and other trade union organizations in sabotaging the efforts of the working class to resist the assault on their living standards, social interests and democratic rights that followed the inauguration of Reagan in January 1981.

The critical test of the Reagan administration—and, more significantly, the turning point in class relations in the United States—came with the strike of nearly 12,000 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Union (PATCO) in August 1981. Ironically, PATCO had endorsed the election of Reagan the previous year, after being told privately that a Republican administration would respond favorably to the union’s demands for improved wages and working conditions. However, in accordance with plans that had actually been drawn up during the Carter administration, Reagan announced that he would fire all controllers who did not return to work within 48 hours. There is ample reason to believe that the Reagan administration received assurances from the AFL-CIO that the labor federation would take no action in support of PATCO. There was widespread sentiment among rank-and-file trade unionists for solidarity action to prevent the destruction of PATCO. Had the AFL-CIO ordered industrial action in support of the air traffic controllers, the Reagan administration would have been forced to retreat, thereby suffering a devastating defeat early in its first term.

But demands for solidarity action were rejected by the AFL-CIO. Four leaders of PATCO went to jail, nearly 12,000 air traffic controllers lost their jobs, and the union was destroyed.

This set the pattern that was followed again and again throughout the 1980s. Bitter strikes were fought by coal miners, steel workers, bus drivers, airline workers, copper miners, auto workers and meatpacking workers. In each and every case, the striking workers were isolated by the national trade union organizations, denied any meaningful support, and consigned, deliberately, to defeat. In the meantime, employers throughout the country pursued their strike-breaking tactics with full confidence that they enjoyed the support of the Reagan administration.

By the time Reagan left office in 1989, the American trade union movement, thanks to the betrayals of the AFL-CIO, had ceased to exist as a social movement.

If the success of Reagan’s domestic program was largely the product of the betrayals of the trade union bureaucracy, what is hailed by the media as the crowning achievement of his international anti-communist program—the precipitous collapse of the USSR—had little to do with the policies of his administration. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, three years after Reagan left office, was the tragic culmination of decades of political betrayal by the Stalinist bureaucracies that ruled in the USSR and its client states in Eastern Europe.

As subsequent analyses of CIA intelligence reports have convincingly demonstrated, the Reagan administration had no inkling whatever of the depth of the political crisis in the Soviet Union. The infamous “Evil Empire” speech delivered by Reagan in 1983 was based on a grotesque exaggeration of Soviet strength, not to mention a malicious and ridiculous misrepresentation of its global ambitions.

In its absurd trumpeting of Reagan’s visionary leadership of America’s victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the media has ignored the really crucial question that arises from an examination of United States foreign policy in the 1980s. And that is, what accounted for the decision by the United States to dramatically and provocatively increase tensions with the USSR? Since the conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, the United States had sought to avoid confrontation with the USSR. This policy was expanded by Nixon and Kissinger in the early 1970s with the official adoption of “détente” as the basis of US-Soviet relations.

As historians now know, the decision to reverse course and adopt a more confrontational approach to the USSR began in the waning days of the Carter administration, with the decision in the summer of 1979 to provide funding and military support for anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan in the hope of provoking a military response by the USSR. The Reagan administration continued and escalated this bellicose policy.

The change in course had far less to do with ideology than with the deepening structural problems of world capitalism, which had been manifested in the recurring economic shocks of the 1970s. The bellicosity of the Reagan administration arose, in the final analysis, as a response to the deteriorating world-economic position of American capitalism.

Regardless of one’s political attitude toward the policies of the Reagan administration, it is fairly obvious, on the basis of any objective analysis, that its efforts to resolve this crisis had proved manifestly unsuccessful by the mid-1980s. The increasingly frantic and illegal methods employed by the Reagan administration to suppress popular insurgencies in Central America—all in the name of the global struggle against communism—culminated in the eruption of the Iran-Contra scandal in late 1986. The exposure of criminal operations organized by rogue operatives inside the White House, carried out in defiance of laws passed by Congress, left the Reagan administration shaken and bewildered. Reagan’s sole defense against criminal charges was that he did not know what was going on in his own administration. In this instance, the claim of ignorance was entirely believable.

The Democratic Party’s response was typically listless. While there was vague talk of impeachment, the Democrats did little more than hold a few half-hearted hearings, in which Oliver North was permitted to taunt and insult them.

But the Reagan administration had all but run out of steam, and its troubles were compounded by the financial consequences of tax cuts and massive increases in military spending. In the face of unprecedented deficits, which had transformed the United States into a debtor nation for the first time since 1914, the Reagan administration was compelled to raise taxes and return to a more accommodating line with the USSR.

The subsequent collapse of the USSR, which Reagan had certainly not foreseen, was only tangentially related to the policies pursued by the “Great Communicator” in the early 1980s. It is true that the dramatic rise in US military spending contributed to the economic problems confronting the USSR. But there is little evidence that Reagan’s policies were of any particular significance in determining the ultimate fate of the USSR. Rather, the liquidation of the Soviet state was carried out by the bureaucratic elite after it had concluded that this was the only means by which it could defend its material interests in the face of an increasingly restive and hostile working class.

Having made these points, it is not our intention to suggest that Reagan achieved nothing as president, that he left no legacy.

That is not at all the case. Though Reagan has departed this world, the accomplishments of his administration live on and are observable everywhere: in the staggering growth of social inequality in the United States, in the grotesque concentration of wealth in the hands of a small segment of American society, in the shocking decline of literacy and the general level of culture, in the utter putrefaction of the institutions of American democracy, and, finally, in the murderous eruption of American militarism.

That is the legacy of Reaganism.
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 11:55 AM   #12
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

You quote David North! I now understand why you hate Ronald Reagan. For anyone who does not know who David North is, he is a communist. Or a Marxist I should say - which is of course a form of communism. I believe he is a student of late Gerry Healy, is he not?
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 12:54 PM   #13
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathcliff
No, by asserting the truth in the face of overwhelming popular disapproval we are displaying courage.
Riiiight....you're not pathetic at all....why you people should get a fuckin' medal for all that courageous copying and pasting you do from your internet linked ratholes when you're in danger of......at any moment......being scoffed at as mindless parrots without the ability to think an original thought of your own to express your hatred of successful, free thinking people.


The sheer volume of your copied material amazes and awes me.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 04:48 PM   #14
Dawn
R.I.P napho 1-31-16
 
Dawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venus
Posts: 16,723
Default

The sheer number of people who are attending this procession (sp?) is absolutely amazing. That should give everyone a hint at how great most people felt this man was.
__________________
I love you napho and I will weep forever..........
Dawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-04, 08:16 PM   #15
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default

Yeah, but did you notice the vacant look on all their faces? It was like they were just watching dinner in the microwave. The whole scene with all the heavy military presence looked like something you would expect to see in some dictatorship where the strongmen take themselves very seriously and repression is strong. When Kennedy had his parade the people's faces were filled with tears. This man was the Great Misleader and deep down everybody knew it. They just haven't awakened to the truth yet.
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-04, 02:47 PM   #16
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default Here's one for my troll....

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair06082004.html


The Nature of Ronald Reagan
Will the Earth Accept His Corpse?
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

In early October of 1983, I found myself at the old Weir Cook airport in Indianapolis awaiting the arrival of David Brower, the great environmentalist. Brower emerged from the plane, his face aglow with impish triumph. We hustled down the terminal to the airport bar where he imparted the momentous news that his nemesis James Watt, the messianic Secretary of Interior, had just been evicted from his post in the Reagan administration.

Watt had doomed himself by denouncing the members of the federal coal-leasing commission as "a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple." The commissioners had shown the audacity to resist Watt's demented shale-oil scheme, which sought to transform the Great Plains into a moonlike landscape of craters and toxic slush ponds. So like Earl Butz before him, Watt's political obituary was written with a racist slur. It's probably fitting that he fell from such a self-inflicted trifle. After all, he was an unrepentent bigot, just like his boss Ronnie. Ask any Apache.

Of course, the Christian fundamentalist and apostle of strip-mining from Wyoming nearly lost his job over another bone-headed misdemeanor: his attempt to bar the Beach Boys from performing at a 4th of July concert on the National Mall. Reagan had to intervene personally on behalf of that All-American band, whose music could have provided the soundtrack for the sunny brand of trickle-down utopianism the president was trying to force-feed the country in those days. The Gipper, who, if nothing else, always demonstrated a keen pr sense, may well have lost confidence in Watt at that precise moment.

But the Interior Secretary, who once declared that the end of the Earth was so close at hand that there was no reason to fret about conserving ecosystems for the long haul, had been on the ropes from the beginning of his tenure, due in large part to the Dump Watt campaign initiated by Brower and his group Friends of the Earth only weeks after Watt's nomination was confirmed by the US senate. Within a few months, Friends of the Earth had gathered more than two million signatures on a petition calling for Watt's removal. In those days, the right to petition the government still seemed to stand for something.

Brower loathed Watt, but viewed him as a comical figure, a corrupt moralist sprung from the pages of a Thackery novel. He reserved his real animosity for the appalling Reagan, the supreme Confidence Artist of American politics.

Unlike many liberals, Brower never wrote off Reagan as an incompetent and incoherent stooge. He knew better. Brower, the archdruid, and Reagan, the union-busting snitch, had sparred with each other across the decades-- first in California over parks and wild rivers, pesticide spraying, nuclear power and the governor's brutal attacks on the peaceable citizens of Brower's hometown of Berkeley; and later around the globe over wilderness, endangered species, the illegal war on Nicaragua and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

During the pitched battles to save some of the world's largest trees, Brower and his cohorts goaded Reagan into making his infamous declaration: "Once you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all." That Zen koan-like pronouncement pretty much summed up Reagan's philosophy of environmental tokenism. Later, Reagan propounded the thesis that trees generated more air pollution than coal-fired power plants. For the Gipper, the only excuse for Nature was to serve as a backdrop for photo-ops, just like in his intros for Death Valley Days, the popular western TV series that served as a catwalk for the rollout of Reagan as a politician.

Brower viewed Reagan as a mean-spirited and calculating figure, entirely cognizant of and culpable for his crimes. He refused to allow the old man access to the twin escape hatches of plausible deniablity and senile dementia.

Born a year apart, the two men were part of the same generation and both had spent most of their lives in California. Yet, the tenor of their lives couldn't have been more different. In World War II Brower served as an instructor for the famous 10th Mountain Division and returned home a pacifist. He didn't talk much about his war experience, preferring to brag about the number of Sierran peaks he'd bagged (70 first ascents) or the wild rivers he'd floated.

Reagan spent World War II in Hollywood making racist propaganda films to inflame the fever for a war that tens of thousands of others would die fighting in. Years later he boasted (that is: lied) about liberating the Nazi death camps, even as he was forced to defend his bizarre decision to bestow presidential honors on the dead at the cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, final resting place for the blood-drenched members of the Waffen SS. Reagan possessed a special talent for the suspension of disbelief when it came to the facts of his own life. Perhaps, if the Earth in Simi Valley refuses to receive his corpse, the custodians of Bitburg could erect a cenotaph for Reagan on those chilly grounds.

After a couple of hours spent draining Tangueray-powered martinis at that airport bar in Indianapolis, some of the initial glow gradually dissipated from Brower's face. "You know, Jeffrey, we may soon come to miss old Watt," Brower predicted.

He was right, of course. James Watt proved to be the greatest fundraising gimmick the big environmental groups ever stumbled across, far outperforming panda calendars and postcards of baby Harp seals about to fall victim to the fur-trader's skull-crushing club. During Watt's tenure, the top 10 environmental groups more than doubled their combined budgets and for a brief time became the most powerful public interest lobby on the Hill.

Watt's approach to the plunder of the planet seethed with an evangelical fervor. He brought with him to Washington a gang of libertarian missionaries, mostly veterans of the Coors-funded Mountain States Legal Foundation, who referred to themselves as the Colorado Crazies. Their mission: privatize the public estate. Many of them were transparent crooks who ended up facing indictment and doing time in federal prison for self-dealing and public corruption. They gave away billions in public timber, coal and oil to favored corporations, leaving behind toxic scars where there used to be wild forests, trout streams and deserts. These thieves were part of the same claque of race-baiting zealots who demonized welfare mothers as swindlers of the public treasury.

Watt, who was himself charged with 25 felony counts of lying and obstruction of justice, never hid his rapine agenda behind soft, made-for-primetime rhetoric. He never preached about win-win solutions, ecological forestry or sustainable development. From the beginning, James Watt's message was clear: grab it all, grab it now. God wills it so. The message was so high-pitched and unadulterated that it provoked a fierce global resistance that frustrated Watt at nearly every turn. In the end, he achieved almost nothing for the forces of darkness.

Soon, Watt's divinely-inspired vigilantism against nature would be replaced by a more calculating approach, a kinder and gentler path to exploitation, that reached a terrible crescendo under Clinton and Gore, a team which, according to Brower's expert calculation, did more damage to the American environment in their first four years in office than Reagan and Bush I accomplished in 12 years.

Still there's reason to miss Watt and Reagan. Their brazen contempt for the world inspired ordinary people to rise up against the leaders of their government on behalf of the spotted owl and Yellowstone grizzly--rise up, and on occasion, actually rout them. Today even Watt's minions, like Steven Griles and Gale Norton, who are now directing the berserker environmental policies of the Bush 2 administration, don't ride nearly as tall in the saddle as Reagan and Watt did in the early 1980s, when it seemed that real demons stalked the earth.

Fade to black.

What follows is an excerpt on the Reagan years from my book, Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature (Common Courage Press).

Reagan's Crazies

The corporate counter-attack on greens began with the rise of the Sagebrush Rebels, an amalgam of ranchers, corporate executives, free-market economists and right-wing politicians who decried environmentalism as socialism-by-another-name and as a backdoor assault on property rights.

The Sagebrush Rebels were ignored until the election of Ronald Reagan, who bowed to the enthusiasms of Joseph Coors-the leading money dispenser of the far right and owner of substantial mineral claims on federal lands-and selected a suite of Sagebrush Rebels to fill important posts in his administration. These Reagan rebels, headed by James Watt (who ran Coors's Mountain States Legal Foundation) and Anne Gorsuch, called themselves "the Crazies on the Hill."

Watt, a millennialist Christian and rabid anti-Communist, was given the Department of Interior, which oversees the management of nearly 500 million acres of public land. He proclaimed he would make the "bureaucracy yield to my blows" and got off to a galloping start. Within a matter of months Watt proposed the sale of 30 million acres of public lands to private companies, gave away billions of dollars worth of publicly-owned coal resources, fought to permit corporations manage national parks, refused to enforce the nation's strip mine law, offered up the Outer Continental Shelf oil reserves to exploration and drilling, ignored the Endangered Species Act and purged the Interior Department of any employees who objected to his agenda.

Rebel Watt defended his actions as being divinely inspired, arguing that conservation of resources for future generations amounted to a waste of "God's gift to mankind."

"I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns," Watt warned. Use it or lose it.

In spite of his ravings Watt held on. He even survived his bizarre attempt to block the Beach Boys (in his fevered mind they represented the incarnation of the counter-culture, even though the group did fundraisers for George Bush) from playing a concert on the Mall, a stance that provoked an amusing rebuke from Reagan, who reminded Watt that the boys were all-American-and, more importantly, Californian. But like Earl Butz before him, Watt was undone by the racism that welled up invincibly within him. Attacking affirmative action, Watt complained that he couldn't set up a panel without finding "a black, a woman, a Jew ]and a person in a wheelchair." Although Watt was later indicted on charges that he bilked the Department of Housing, Education and Welfare out of millions, it was this remark that did him in.

Over at the Environmental Protection Agency, Watt's counterpart was Anne Gorsuch, a rough-hewn and ignorant Colorado legislator. Gorsuch, who later married Robert Burford, the rancher and mineral engineer Watt tapped to head the Bureau of Land Management, surrounded herself with a coven of advisors from the pollution lobby, including lawyers from General Motors, Exxon and DuPont. Her objective was to cripple environmental laws passed in the 1970s which, she argued, had created an "overburden" of regulations that "stifled economic growth."

To lead the toxic waste division of the EPA Gorsuch chose Rita Levelle, a public relations executive with the Aerojet General Corporation, a defense contractor with potentially vast hazardous waste liabilities. At news of her appointment many of the EPA's top scientists and administrators promptly quit.

Gorsuch and Burford left a miasma of suspended regulations, secret meetings with industry lobbyists, waived fines, and suppressed recommendations of agency scientists. In one piquant case Levelle refused-at the behest of Joseph Coors-to enforce new rules which prohibited dumping liquid hazardous waste into community landfills. Coors's breweries disposed of millions of gallons of such wastes near Denver.

The climate of cronyism that infected the EPA in those days had its source in the highest levels of the Reagan administration, which encouraged agency heads such as Gorsuch to pander to its political allies: Coors, Browning-Ferris Industries, Westinghouse and Monsanto.

Gorsuch's downfall came after congressional investigators requested records of her warm chats with companies under EPA's jurisdiction. At the advice of a White House counsel she refused to give over the documents and was duly cited with contempt of Congress. When she was called to defend herself, the Reagan Justice Department refused to accompany her. Gorsuch resigned in disgust.

Meanwhilee, the insipid and grossly naïve Levelle, took the fall for the entire corrupt regime. She was eventually convicted on charges of lying to Congress and spent six months in federal prison.

Less heralded, though equally sinister, was Reagan's appointment of John Crowell as assistant secretary of agriculture, a critical position overseeing the operations of the Forest Service, which is one of the largest agencies in the federal government. As the former general counsel for Louisiana-Pacific, the nation's largest purchaser of federal timber, Crowell knew his duty. One of his first schemes was to suppress an internal investigation of his predatory former employer. Forest Service investigators had concluded that Louisiana-Pacific may have bilked the government out of more than $80 million by fraudulent bidding practices on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

Crowell then commanded the Forest Service to double its annual offering of subsidized timber, much of which was destined for mills owned by Louisiana-Pacific. He temporarily halted designation of new federal wilderness areas and squashed scientific reports suggesting that the relentless clearcutting in Washington and Oregon would wipe out the northern spotted owl.

Such useful objectives quickly accomplished, Crowell departed the Reagan administration for a more lucrative tenure at a Portland law firm, which specialized in clients such as the National Forest Products Association, which have a profound interest in exploiting the natural resources of the public domain.

The raw ideologues of the Sagebrush Rebellion over-reached, but their core message took hold: environmental regulations sapped economic growth. Environmental overkill became the excited talk of Washington's PR houses such as Burson-Marsteller and lobbying firms such as Akin, Gump and Patton, Boggs and Blow, which plotted a strategy of containment.

Often all that was needed was a kindlier visage. Take the case of James Watt's replacement at Interior, Donald Hodel. Shortly after Hodel took up his new duties he was hailed by several environmental CEOs, as an "honorable man." Yet Hodel's policies at Interior were as pro-industry as Watt's, and far more effective. During his time there, Bureau of Land Management timber sales hit record levels, as did subsidies for the grazing and mining industries. Hodel was the man who objected to the Montreal protocol for restricting ozone-shredding chemicals, suggesting that to avoid skin cancer from increased ultraviolet radiation, people should simply wear sunglasses, hats and sunscreen.

Watt, Gorsuch, Levelle and Crowell were magnificent villains for fundraising: direct mail revenues for the top environmental groups exploded tenfold from 1979 to 1981. Green became the color of money, and the rag-tag band of hard-core activists who populated the Hill in the 1970s gave way to a cadre of Ivy League-educated lobbyists, lawyers, policy wonks, research scientists and telemarketers. Executives enjoyed perks and salaries that rivaled those of corporate CEOs.

By the end of the 1980s, Jay Hair was pulling down a quarter of a million dollars a year for overseeing the National Wildlife Federation's $80 million budget, and kept his limo engine running at all times, the air-conditioner grinding ozone at full-tilt against the moment he emerged from his office on an eco-mission or deal-making sortie.

Over at the Audubon Society a lawyer named Peter Berle commanded $200,000 a year. As he trimmed away at the muscle of the conservation staff, he gloated, "Unlike Greenpeace, Audubon doesn't have a reputation as a confrontational organization."

The Wilderness Society meanwhile passed into the grip of William Turnage, a Yale-educated manager, after the board of directors ousted Stewart Brandborg. Turnage vowed to transform the Wilderness Society into a "mainstream organization" devoted to policy analysis. Within three years, 37 staffers, denounced by Turnage as "young, radical, crusader types," had been kicked out the door, including Dave Foreman, who went on to found Earth First! The greens were replaced by Harvard-educated lawyers, such as Peter Coppleman (who went on to serve as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration), conservative economists such as Alice Rivlin (tapped by Clinton to head the Office of Management and Budget), and industry foresters such as Jeff Olson, who formerly worked for timber colossus Boise/Cascade.

The big environmental organizations were by now well pickled in the political brine of Washington, with freshness and passion largely gone.

Perhaps Reagan and Watt had triumphed after all.
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-04, 09:28 AM   #17
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathcliff
Yeah, but did you notice the vacant look on all their faces? It was like they were just watching dinner in the microwave. The whole scene with all the heavy military presence looked like something you would expect to see in some dictatorship where the strongmen take themselves very seriously and repression is strong. When Kennedy had his parade the people's faces were filled with tears.


Yes there is a large Military presence, maybe you have chosen to forget but Reagan was a strong supporter of the Military. How on earth you can compare the mood of the people between a Young President being ASSINANATED while still in office to a 93-year-old President dieing from old age who has been out of politics for 15 years is beyond me.

Nice article, want to have a competition to see who could post the most? You can post from the Liberal sites and I will post from the Conservative sites. I could start with these if you like, let me know.

Ruddy Limbaugh: Faith in America

Putnam: Special Reagan

Gallagher: Media Disrespect

Charles R. Smith: Legacy of Peace

Left Coast Report: Reagan's Evolution

Koch: Everyone's Hero

Weyrich: 'That Wall'

Perry: Gipper's Gift

Estrich: Classy Reagans

Navrozov: RR & Soviet Threat

Bruce: Reagan Changed Me

Metcalf: Reagan Was a Man

Williams: Memories of Reagan

Roberts: He Changed World

Wheeler: A Great Soul
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-04, 06:47 PM   #18
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default

Post anything you like, in any amount you like, you don't need my permission. Just think about whether you are on the side of the great bulk of humanity or on the side of the psychopaths who enslave them with fear, confusion, hate, greed and filth.

Nothing unreal really exists anyway. Nothing real can be threatened.

I just think it's more important to debunk the lies, propaganda and intimidation of the ruling elite than to make a tool out of yourself by simply amplifying them.

I mean it was your hero Reagan who canceled the Fairness Doctrine and turned loose a tidal wave of right wing filth on America robbing us all of our rightful destiny of truth and justice in favor of Fascism and police state trashing of the Bill of Rights.

On that account he doesn't deserve anything but a leftward biased interpretation.

Knock yourself out, see what it gets you. Maybe your masters will throw you a bone before they stab you in the back.

It comes down to this: you can choose Light or Darkness. All those bastards in the National Cathedral today have make their choice (save probably Dennis Kucinich and a few others). It was all a pathetic tissue of lies.

I appreciate your polite tone though. It is a refreshing change compared to some resent response I have recieved.

__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-04, 06:54 PM   #19
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

U dorks need to figure out how to come up with u're own ideas.

cut&paste don make it.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-04, 07:23 PM   #20
Heathcliff
One half won't do
 
Heathcliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 270
Default

When I want to drive a car I don't start with iron ore and forge my own. I rely on experts to build one for me. It's perfectly legitimate. Besides the last two posts weren't pasted so what you gripping about?
__________________
No matter how powerful our political and religious leaders think they are, they are as dust before the immense and implacable forces of history and progress.
Alan Moore [in Salon]
Heathcliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)