Why does Raygun get an aircraft carrier named after him....

...and not Jimmy Carter?

Jimmy Carter is an Annapolis grad, he served active duty in the Navy. Okay, it wasn't war time, but he did his bit.

If this is the first time they have named an aircraft carrier after a "living" president, then WHY NOT CARTER? Yes, I know I am preaching to the choir.

But what did Reagan ever do to deserve this, except help assure power to the neocons that form today's oligarchy?

Alzheimers when President. I saw a news clip where Nancy was dedicating the ship. She pushed the naming through.

At least he exhibited the early signs. Remember when Nancy had to tell him "We're doing all we can."? Of course you don't. Damn kids! :silly:

The next carrier is named G.H.W. Bush!!! Seriously!!!

Obvious who the Pentagon prefers.

Grrr.

:puke:

This is outrageous.

otherwise fine ships! I hope no relative of mine ever serves on either one.

Liar...

sail around aimlessly loosing intel while the GHWB will only be able to sail for four years?

USS Jimmy Carter, SSN-23.
A nuclear submarine of the "Seawolf" class.
Appropraite, since Carter served on Submarines.

Otherwise I was going to suggest to Great Aunt of Triplets that calling Reagan a "living" president was some kind of technicality.

Was it as big a news story?

Except for inside the navy, it was pretty quiet. Like the newspeople were hiding it or something.

During WWII he narrated Army training films! The fact is he is the father of the neocon movement and they pee in their pants just thinking about him.

naughty me!

You dirty bird!

Plenty to choose from. Almost all have an "R" behind their name.

Republican presidents generaly don't have much to apologize for in the chickenhawk area. Reagan served. Not in combat, but he did his part as ordered. Bush Sr. was the youngest naval ace in WWII, hardly a chickenhawk. Nixon & Ford were both WWII naval officers. Eisenhower obviously needs no defense.

Now when AWOL gets a carrier named after him, we'll have reason to complain.

And not good ones I am certain.

infamous Chickenhawk "Duck" Cheney was the featured speaker at the big event today launching the U.S.S. Chickenhawk!

doesn't make him a chickenhawk. most people in the military are in support roles of some sort, not combat. there are plenty of good reasons to vilify Reagan without distorting his service record. it's not as if he's getting a carrier named after him for his military service anyway.

personally i think it's in bad taste to name things after politicians during their general era, particularly living politicians. but i'm a lot more offended by renaming National Airport in his honor than by this.

Sort of. He worked in Hollywood as a film censor, was given the rank of Captain (US Army), and never slept away from home.

Bush (the Greater) was not a fighter pilot, he flew a torpedo plane, and I will give credit where it's due: he did an ok job of it. But he was no ace (he did get closer to becoming a ace than his son ever did, since he did SEE enemy planes).

As for Eisenhower and Nixon, that was a long time ago.

I also disapprove of naming Navy ships after living people. At last count, there were 4: Admiral Arliegh Burke (now deceased), Jimmy Carter, Bob Hope, and now Ronald Reagan.

he did win the Distinguished Flying Cross however, which is where my confusion came from. he flew 58 combat missions in a squadron that suffered 50% casualties among its pilots. now, i can't stand the man's politics or presidency. but, i have heaps of respect for the man's military service. he really put his ass on the line. i assume he must have been deeply ashamed of Jr's service record.

i never understood how he got tagged with the so-called 'wimp factor'. i mean calling Bush Sr. a wimp compared to Reagan is just insane.

But find my jaw dropping when I hear that he might have abandonded his crew,

during the last 4 years i was in the navy, half that time was spent in newport news shipyard, onboard one of the last 688 subs being built. they actually changed the name of the USS Harry S. Truman to the reagan. Truman would get his carrier, but it would be another hull(reagan is cvn76 and the truman is cvn75. all new carriers are named for presidents, much like missile subs were 30 years ago.

anyhow, there were never plans to name a carrier after bush41...cvn77 was slated to be called the USS Lexington.....the third in a line of famous carriers, but jr's secratary of the navy willed daddy bush's name to it in dec.2002.

John McCain comes from a naval family. his grandfather and father, who also served in WWII, have both had and have ships named after them....destroyers(ddg36 and now ddg56)....and JSMcIII is part of this. the current USS John S McCain(ddg 56), is named for all three.

adm and cdr McCain onboard the Uss Proteus in japan

i feel that since McCain was such a thorn in the side of the chimp, and because his father and grandfather before him were actual heros in WWII, dubya, in his everlasting quest to prove he is better than his rival, named the biggest ship he could'a after daddy bush.....a carrier is easily 4 to 5 times larger than a destroyer...this carrier named after 41 is just jr wagging his cock at McCain....imho...god knows 41 didn't really do anything outstanding as president...carreiers are generally named for REAL presidents...i can see reagans...he was a 2 termer, like him or not...but bush41????

Which you can ignore:
Destroyers, like the John S. McCain have crews of around 300 and weigh in at 6000 tons.
Carriers of the Nimitz class have crews of over 6000 (including air wing) and weigh in at over 90,000 tons.

Yes, I agree he's 'snubbing' people, he's just doing it even more than you thought.

USS Nimitz (CVN 68), San Diego, Calif.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), Newport News, Va.
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Norfolk, Va.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Everett, Wash.
USS George Washington (CVN 73), Norfolk, Va.
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), San Diego, Calif.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Norfolk, Va.
Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) (under construction)
George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) (under construction)

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html

Carrier Vessel Numb Nuts

Grover Norquist announced some years ago that one of his missions was to have as many public projects named after RR as there were named after JFK...interesting in that he's also said that his goal is to kill government...which kinda makes him like a dog chasing his tail.

his own ass.

Sorry, kinda pissed off today at the missed opportunities on the media talk shows. Looks like I'm going to be verified that the Niger document is not going to be the story that blows the lid off this corrupt regime. And anyway, I hate Norquist.

How long will it be before they propose to add Reagan to Mt. Rushmore? I will puke if they put him alongside those Presidents. Can they even do it? I thought I heard something about it before.

since that is how he so valiantly served.

and he would still be president if there were no term limits. The military despised Carter nearly as much as Clinton.

Surprising, since Reagan got far more of the military killed than either Carter or Clinton

if troops are engaged then casualties will ensue, its a matter of containing that number. But billions are billions.

That Carter gave the military the biggest pay raise in its history, plus all the neat toys that Reagan would take credit for.

What will they do after Raygun dies, declare a Holy Day of Obligation?

When the fearless zombie-killers finally grind up his living-dead flesh into malto-meal and flush his pitiful, but struggling, remains down a Cairo lavatory, the Republicans will declare that day to be "National Enema Day".

Both the concepts of Ray-goon and Aircraft Carriers are outmoded.

Please explain that last part. Aircraft Carriers are outmoded. I'm only curious, as it seems to be news to the whole world.

One missile and you have lost your carrier. So far we have been engaging enemy that do not have that technology. When we do they will be vulnerable.

and there is more to hitting a target than just shooting the missle.

Carriers are portable airfields as has recently been demonstrated to great effect. You are mistaken on this point.

Argentina gave the Royal Navy some problems during the Falkland Island war.


Sank several surface ships, and damaged a carrier.

And then get back to me.
The Argentine Air Force had over 300 planes.
The British had 3 carriers with 12 planes each.
Remember who won that war.

they are OK but are no match to ours.

When we send a carrier we don't just send a carrier, we send a carrier group, that means other ships and subs who "look after" the big dumb ship.

...made them outmoded and vulnerable...due to the small nation sized air force they carry on board.

it is feasible that something will come along one day and send the aircraft carrier the way of the battleship, but there is nothing on the horizon that a battle group hasn't dealt with before....

carriers don't worry about missiles hitting them, thats what the destroyers and other escorts are there for. submarines are the real fear, which is why such a stink is raised about rouge nations getting them. subs can slip through the escorts realitivly easy...easier than surface sailors like to admit.....

and NOBODY can touch our submarines. We own the seas above and below the surface and barring a foolish collapse of our military by the politicians, noone will ever catch up.

Why was Reagan so popular? He is revered by the right. What did he do that they hold in such high esteam?

The easy part of the answer is that RR was in the office when the Soviet Union fell. Reagan's impact on their fall was certainly not the extent that the right mythologises him for. But he was there when the walls came down. It is a signficant fact.

The key to understanding though comes from understanding the social situation found in America in the later part of the 20th century and through to today.

We live in a complex society. With so many cultures and beliefs it is increasingly difficult to know how to behave with various groups. Add to this the fact that all manner of lifestyles are cropping up that were never so visible before. Freedom of expression. Civil rights. Emancipation. Things are changing. Change causes stress. Change causes confusion. Change challenges the status quo.

There are various components of our society that do not welcome tolerance. They believe that certain behaviours are evil. They believe there is an absolute morality that they are privy to. Yet the changes in our society push these views to the side. These people become oppressed. They see the society that does not allow their views to prosper as holding them down. They see the media that does not express their beliefs as biased. They seek a way to strike back at their oppressors.

This country set itself free of England because it did not feel it's voice was represented in how it was governed. The NeoCon movement also see's itself as unrepresented by the government. So they seek to dismantle that oppression. We the Democratic party symbolise much of the oppression that they percieve in the country. Our insistance of tolerance and moral relativism is a corruption of everything they believe in. Our attempts to build a stronger society based on our ideals is seen as eroding the fabric of society. Thus they stand to stop us any way they can.

When Reagan enacted his so called Trickle Down theory they may have actually believed it would work. It didn't. And yet this is largely what they sing praise about for Ronnie. The reason they are overjoyed with his economic plan is not because of its claimed efficacy but rather because it loaded the government with such an immense debt that the Dems could no longer pass any new programs.

Reagan inadvertantly stumbled upon a new way to stick it to the left. By claiming to help the common person with tax cuts he effectively silenced the common person's voice. The government is the people in action. Taxes are the means by which our desires are put into effect. Taxes are our voice. By cutting taxes Ronnie silenced the people, stifled any new "progress" and made Ronnie look like a champion of the little guy. Ronnie found a way to stop the progress of the liberals and progressives while remaining popular. Thus appeasing all those who have no desire to live in a society where they may have to work a bit to understand their neighbor.

Heading down that road that has been proven to be wrong. I am new here and am not set in my viewpoints. But socialism doesnt work and I wanna know if that is where the democratic party is heading. I dont mean any disrespect or any trouble. I just am trying to understandthe process. Thanks

He was lucky to be there when the Berlin wall fell. For a man who was a hawk he treated the troops like crap he refused to approve a pay hike for them. On socialism you have a point but you forget socialism is an economic system not a government system and the only thing that makes communism that is at least in the USSR's case be bad is far communists to start acting right wing like favoring the wealthy, taking money from workers, and stuff. I want the party to head left honestly.

But doesnt socialism thrive on taking money from those who bust thier asses to make it and give it to those who dont want to work? I Think any good society has to have a safety net, but I dont think it should finance those who dont(wont) work cause the goverment should pay thier way through life. I am asking if that is the way the democratic party is going? I am here to make some decisions and I want to know if I am right or wrong in wanting to be a democrat. If that means socialism I will say NO. Thanks again

You are hearing the tired propaganda. Actually many who work hard in life have a chance to use these programs but they choose not do. Socialism isnt evil and Capitalism isnt evil they both can be corrupted if the wrong people handle them though. Those who bust their asses off by the way are exploited in capitalism too well my great grandfather was in a mine working his ass off the rich of the nation were on the private yachts but whos the better person the man who works hard to support his immigrant family or the wealthy heir always on his yacht laying people off I say the former. I would like it if self many millionaires remembered their old struggles and many do and I respect that. Well do you wanna be a democrat? I cant help you with that but all I can tell you is that the republicans represent the rich and the democrats and liberals represent us all from the worker to the student they do it all republicans represent the more greedy person.

I am not a greedy or wealthy person...$25,000 thats if i dont miss a day. But, I used to work in NJ and was in the union. I got raised to managment and out of the union. I was now told to agree with whatever the union said. They(like most small unions) were told to keep raises down. The owners payed them to keep raises to .25 an hour. I have always been told that the unions are all democratically backed. That just seemes to me to be a standard that says $$$ will go to or backers and keep the poor poor same as the indictments are from the Democrats. I want to know what is different and why rich democrats are differant from rich republicans? Sounds like its all the same but I dont want more taken then i have now to make this country soicialist. I have always registared DEM and always voted that way. But I DO NOT WANT TO BE A SOCIALIST GOVERMENT!!!

No democrat wants socialism silly why do you think the most liberal of democrats during the cold war opposed Moscow. Many unions back democrats yes and many unions can do good for their workers too dont believe me ask my great grandparents they were miners. 25,000 I dont think you would benefit from any republican party. I think the difference between rich democrats and rich republicans is that the former cares. This country wont go socialist relax democrats are capitalists maybe not laiezz faire capitalists but capitalists. There is a socialist party in this country. BTW socialism is better than fascism and the Bush adminstration with their Patriot Act is leaning on it. Would you rather have socialism with freedom or capitalism with tryanny I dunno about you I rather would have the former. Democrats arent socialists either there are socialists parties in this country you know. The Bush tax cut mostly benefits the wealthiest 1% and people like you work more harder than that you people deserve the cut not Bush's campaign contributators.

I appreciate your talking to me and I hope we can talk again. I am still on the post but your talking to me with your explanations is a great help. No-one else on here has taken the time so I was about to say F@ck it. Thanks again and hope to talk soon. Sweet dreams John!!!

Lynn

just remember lynn dems arent socialist and even if they were that would be better than laizze faire capitalism. I am not sure but you will learn much here. We can be a little silly and roudy but democrats in the all are better for people like you. Don't let the right get you thinking that those who are left are socialists I am pretty far left honestly I wouldnt take being called a socialist like an insult. Republicans also chicken out on our wars too. Have a good night.

No one system is perfect. In fact we are discovering that pure expressions of various systems are even more problematic. Socialism does not work on its own. There is insufficient drive to motivate people without turning to social tyrany. Capitalism has pitfalls as well. Particularly as corporatism begins to surface.

Sufficiently organised corporations begin to sway the balance of power away from the people and into the hands of the corporations. This is problematic because corporations have different needs and agendas than the people do and in fact are in direct competition with them in many ways. Thus a nation that becomes politically dominated by its corporations ceases to serve the people it is comprised of.

Capitalism is illsuited for certain things. Medicine, the arts, science, education, these fields are critical to the betterment of human society. In the hands of corporations and capitalism they run into patterns that cease to function for our benefit. It becomes more profitible to treat a disease than to cure it. Art becomes stripped of its complexities and nuances as corporations attempt to peddle it to the lowest common denominator. Science becomes hostage as does all intellectual concepts as corporations push the patent laws forever into the future keeping the idea from reaching the public forever. Education becomes little more than teaching to the test as corporations drive towards increasing efficiency and decreasing expense.

Some things that are valuable for society are not profitible finacially. This is why a combination of socialism and capitalism is necissary. The systems need to be flexible and capable of alteration should we realise that they are illsuited for the field they are applied to. Anyone that things the position of the Dems is to turn this country into a pure socialistic country is simply not listening. Capitalism is very good for certain aspects of society. But capitalism is not a miracle. It has limits and it has weaknesses. We can do better.

There is insufficient drive to motivate people without turning to social tyrany.

uh huh...ok...whatever ya say :eyes:

If freepers cant be driven by the common love and brotherhood they proffer as being the light and freedom of the world, then they are the problem, and they need to be marginalized.

Socialism, in whatever form, will be the ultimate future for man who can (and will) find out that we're all in this together. Could that include capitalism? Yeah. Some communism? Sure! Even some corporatism (I have no problem with Ben and Jerry's)! But socilaism is the only way...all of our wealth and being as the source for the wealth and being of society.

will be socialist. But the trouble is there are inefficiencies inherant to socialism. Specifically resource production and distribution. These shortages are balanced on the backs of the people. The problem is exasterbated by the fact that not all find the same desire to contribute to society. These people become oppressed and their numbers swell as the society places greater unwarranted pressure to make up for shortages.

The solution is in technology. Technology continues to drive the costs of production towards zero. Eventually manufacturing will approach zero sufficiently that the weight of cost will be carried without searching beyond those that wish to be a productive part of society.

The trouble with marginalizing individuals who do not share the view of society is that it becomes and ever increasing leak within the system. Eventually resulting in collapse of the ability of the society to claim its mandate from the people. A system needs to be in place that can allow people the freedom to contribute if they should choose to or not. Without this the oppressive nature becomes problematic over time.

Ronald Reagan left office in January 1989. Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin opened in November 1989.

Reagan gets credit for things that happened after his watch.
Clinton gets blamed for things that happened before his watch (Ruby Ridge, Chinese nuclear espionage).

not what again?

Az

You are right, you put your finger on the issue. Whether RR was responsible of not for the fall of the USSR, he gets credit. We have a sports culture and the coach gets the credit or blame when the team wins or loses. Did John Gruden truly make the difference for Tampa Bay this year or would that team have won with any coach? Who knows? What we do know is they won with him there and he gets the credit.

Similarly, RR was in charge when the Soviet Union came tumbling down and THAT is why both the right and the military love him.

Really!

"But what did Reagan ever do to deserve this, except help assure power to the neocons that form today's oligarchy?"

Perhaps you answered your own question with that remark.

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php

Does anyone know if President Clinton has his own personal bulletin board???

They are LIARS

That just sucks on so many levels..

The military is rife with things named after lying chiseling criminals, and Grover Nutquist is trying to name everything else after St. Ronnie of Reagan..:(

THAT'S the kind of shit that happens when our side is not forceful enough to maintain a majority in at least ONE house of congress. This kind of shit gets shoved sown our throats..:(

Illegally selling missiles to Iran

Illegally diverting the peoples money to a private cause

Aiding and assisting the running of drugs into this country

Creating the largest national debt, that is before GW “Shrub”

A concerted effort to mislead and lie to Congress and the American People.

Aiding and assisting foreign governments in the operations of “death squads”

The active cover-up of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero; the brutal rape and murder of the Maryknoll nuns

Just to name a few of the better moments of the Reagan administration.

Wonder what would have happened if he had played around with an intern?

I was an employee of NNS until I quit two years ago to finish college...

I installed and tested a lot of equipment on that thing.

Nobody could figure out why they named it after Reagan, and nobody really cared...it was a paycheck. Shoot, they named one after John Stennis who was a segregationist from what I gather. I still can't figure that one out.

Just pray they don't name on after Shrub!

Was a congressman or senator on the naval committee. When he passed away, his fellow committee members honored him with a aircraft carrier.

Typical of congressman. In any given list of ships, you will find one named after a congressman that no one outside of his district heard of.

He was a Democratic Senator from Mississippi for 42 years. Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (hence the carrier). President Pro Tempore of the Senate. First Dem. Senator to criticize Joe McCarthy from the floor of the Senate.

administration in history. Worse than Bush, so far. In So Cal we have a freeway named after him. There's an Airport. Gawd, I get so discouraged sometimes...

CHARISMA! Reagan had a lot of it. Carter did too, but far from as much.

Don't get me wrong. Reagan was wrong on almost every issue. Carter was a much better president. I am simply stating the answer to your question.

...it should have been a garbage skow.

:-)

Republicans like their presidents that way.

After people who are still alive. It smacks of the way that the Stalinists named everything after themselves while they were still alive (e.g., Stalingrad).

Martin