# Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101



## Dante

*Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
*1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit



> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own&#8212;a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent events&#8212;Reagan&#8217;s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get &#8220;soft&#8221; officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of &#8220;moral disarmament&#8221; and Safire mocking Reagan&#8217;s rapport with Gorbachev: &#8220;He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev&#8217;s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.&#8221; It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan



So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA


----------



## Dante

*How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com

 Monday, Feb 2, 2009 03:28 AM PST
How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.
By Will Bunch



> In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons&#8217; easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. The first Reagan salvos came from the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative think tank that also had feted the 10th anniversary of the Reagan tax cut in 1991. After its initial article slamming the Times, the foundation&#8217;s magazine, Policy Review, came back in July 1997 with a second piece for its 20th anniversary issue: &#8220;Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?&#8221;
> 
> The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagan&#8217;s legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong. The tone was established by none other than Reagan&#8217;s own son, Michael, now himself a talk-radio host, who wrote: &#8220;Although my father is the one afflicted with Alzheimer&#8217;s disease, I sometimes think the Republicans are suffering a much greater memory loss. They have forgotten Ronald Reagan&#8217;s accomplishments &#8212; and that is why we have lost so many of them.&#8221;



*How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*



> The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was hatched in the spring of 1997 &#8212; and perhaps like any successful guerrilla operation, there was an element of surprise. There was no formal announcement, nothing to tip off any alarmists on the left. Rather than incorporate the Reagan project as a separate entity, which carried the potential of greater scrutiny of its operations and its finances, it was simply a unit of the group that Norquist had been overseeing for more than a decade, the Americans for Tax Reform. The Reagan Legacy Project would not even get its first mention in print until October 23, 1997 &#8212; by then its first bold proposal had two key backers in Georgia Rep. Bob Barr and that state&#8217;s Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. They had endorsed legislation that would rename the Capitol region&#8217;s busy domestic airport, Washington National, as Reagan National. The renaming would not only mean that millions of air travelers would pass through the facility named for the 40th president, but a disproportionate number would be from the nation&#8217;s liberal elites, especially in Big Media, who used the airport&#8217;s popular shuttle service. Simply put, Reagan National Airport would be a weekly thumb in the eye of the Yankee elites who were still belittling the aging Gipper&#8217;s presidency.



*How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*


----------



## whitehall

Geez. what a crock of crap.


----------



## Trajan

don't be a dilettante dante, google rangering is not very productive, its just spills ones ignorance to view....


----------



## Dante

whitehall said:


> Geez. what a crock of crap.





try to be specific...what exactly do you dare dispute?


----------



## Dante

Trajan said:


> don't be a dilettante dante, google rangering is not very productive, its just spills ones ignorance to view....



Taj, information can be power. Information that is powerful often elicits responses like yours and that of whitlesshall

dispute one _fact_ if you dare

someday you will be worthy enough to challenge in the Bull Ring. Until then, learn to earn credibility by disputing facts


----------



## Dante

To those who might stumble into this thread through curiosity, we ask only one thing...

notice when ideologues and tools attack yet offer no refutation or argument.

your most un-humble servant
Dante

dD


----------



## Meathead

Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!


----------



## Dante

Meathead said:


> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!



I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).

Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office. 

Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.

Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from

revisionism doesn't work where information is available

Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.

Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.



What is it so-called conservatives today do not get about Reagan's Presidency at the time he served?

Reagan Legacy PRoject

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't be a dilettante dante, google rangering is not very productive, its just spills ones ignorance to view....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taj, information can be power. Information that is powerful often elicits responses like yours and that of whitlesshall
> 
> dispute one _fact_ if you dare
> 
> someday you will be worthy enough to challenge in the Bull Ring. Until then, learn to earn credibility by disputing facts
Click to expand...


Poor Traj.


----------



## whitehall

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez. what a crock of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try to be specific...what exactly do you dare dispute?
Click to expand...


Reagan brought the US from the brink of ruin under liberal progressive Jimmy Carter and his alcoholic brother and put pride back in the US. Reagan policies made sure that we became the last super power in the world. If you wanted to examine the eight years of any administration you could find some bills that don't quite measure up to modern scrutiny and you can cherry pick junk and spin it anyway you want to but Reagan had to deal with a radical left wing congress and he did it with style. Reagan had to compromise with the radical left and deal with an obscure amendment to a Military appropriations bill sponsored by a left wing congressman named Boland that all but guaranteed Communist infiltration to Central America and true to form the left wing media blew it up into Iran/Contra. Reagan still triumphed on that issue.


----------



## Meathead

Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.


----------



## Dante

The immature and barely literate defend Reagan? How precious.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.



You're an idiot Reagan closed loopholes and lower overall tax rates that's called tax reform unemployment went from almost 11% to just over 5% under Reagan, Reagans policy of "peace through Strength" bankrupted the Soviets while the piece of shit liberals tried to make backroom deals with them. People leaving the military because of Reagan? You're full of it Reagan, restored pride in this country, brought back our economy from the abyss, unleashed our energy production capability, he couldnt get the spending cuts he wanted because of the liberals in congress


----------



## Meathead

I think it's because of Obama's obvious failures and the contrast of a hugely successful president to a very mediocre current POTUS that leads them to try to revise history. It is obviously a fool's errand in light of facts and the huge popularity of Reagan and his legacy so many years later.

I figure it's a sort of therapeutic venting of outrage over Obama's incompetence and lack of leadership. They just don't have the insight to recognize it.


----------



## Dante

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot Reagan closed loopholes and lower overall tax rates that's called tax reform unemployment went from almost 11% to just over 5% under Reagan, Reagans policy of "peace through Strength" bankrupted the Soviets while the piece of shit liberals tried to make backroom deals with them. People leaving the military because of Reagan? You're full of it Reagan, restored pride in this country, brought back our economy from the abyss, unleashed our energy production capability, he couldnt get the spending cuts he wanted because of the liberals in congress
Click to expand...


*Let's look at the record:*

Spending

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. 

*Ludwig von Mises Institute | the Free Market

Advancing Austrian Economics, Liberty, and Peace for 30 years*

The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan





> Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachevs visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WYsee 1983), rebel. Cheney says: Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.
> 
> Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a suicide pact. Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan wildly wrong in his dealings with the Soviets.
> 
> Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call summit fever, accusing Reagan of appeasement both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagans cutting deals with the evil empire (see March 8, 1983).
> 
> They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
> 
> Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
> ...
> [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]


George Will

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com


----------



## Dante

Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. _It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes._ It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488


----------



## chikenwing

So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??

A myopic view of events perhaps?


----------



## Dante

chikenwing said:


> So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??
> 
> A myopic view of events perhaps?


Nothing myopic but your post.

After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.

Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP. 

Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.

I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.


----------



## Meathead

chikenwing said:


> So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??
> 
> A myopic view of events perhaps?


It was a "shellacking" in the words of The One.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dante said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??
> 
> A myopic view of events perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing myopic but your post.
> 
> After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.
> 
> Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP.
> 
> Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.
> 
> I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, Dante but didn't Barack Obama run on a theme of a balanced approach to fixing the deficit...a combination of tax increases and spending cuts?

So the GOP caved and gave him the tax increases he wanted...

The balls now in his court as we await the spending cuts to "balance" things out.


----------



## Oldstyle

Only after four years of progressive "leadership" it's obvious that Barack Obama is incapable of making spending cuts to government.  So who's in trouble going forward?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Why do Conservatives believe that Eastern Europe is better off free from the crushing oppression of Soviet Communism?  

Why don't we realize that what we viewed as "Crushing oppression" is how Democrats view true love from Government?


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


Public perception of Reagan and Clinton beggar reason. 

Reagan was a New Dealer selling neocon dogma to halfwits as he expanded social programs and tripled the debt, while Clinton was a real ReagaNUT selling human potential horseshit to losers as he unleashed the dogs of avarice on the US working class. 

Noir humor at its bleakest.


----------



## Meathead

Forget it. Whining about Reagan's successes is not going to make Obama look any better.


----------



## Dante

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the repubs lost in 08 and 12 ,why did the dems get such an ass kicking in 2010??
> 
> A myopic view of events perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing myopic but your post.
> 
> After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.
> 
> Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP.
> 
> Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.
> 
> I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Dante but didn't Barack Obama run on a theme of a balanced approach to fixing the deficit...a combination of tax increases and spending cuts?
> 
> So the GOP caved and gave him the tax increases he wanted...
> 
> The balls now in his court as we await the spending cuts to "balance" things out.
Click to expand...


Let the GOP propose what it is THEY want to cut and the President and Democrats will compromise.

The President and Democrats laid out what taxes they wanted raised. GOP's turn to step up to the plate.


----------



## Dante

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why do Conservatives believe that Eastern Europe is better off free from the crushing oppression of Soviet Communism?
> 
> Why don't we realize that what we viewed as "Crushing oppression" is how Democrats view true love from Government?


----------



## Dante

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public perception of Reagan and Clinton beggar reason.
> 
> Reagan was a New Dealer selling neocon dogma to halfwits as he expanded social programs and tripled the debt, while Clinton was a real ReagaNUT selling human potential horseshit to losers as he unleashed the dogs of avarice on the US working class.
> 
> Noir humor at its bleakest.
Click to expand...


The Clinton attack sounds like a progressive left criticism. Yet people like Robert Reich liked Clinton with exceptions...how welfare reform was accomplished.


----------



## Toronado3800

whitehall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez. what a crock of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try to be specific...what exactly do you dare dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan brought the US from the brink of ruin under liberal progressive Jimmy Carter and his alcoholic brother and put pride back in the US. Reagan policies made sure that we became the last super power in the world. If you wanted to examine the eight years of any administration you could find some bills that don't quite measure up to modern scrutiny and you can cherry pick junk and spin it anyway you want to but Reagan had to deal with a radical left wing congress and he did it with style. Reagan had to compromise with the radical left and deal with an obscure amendment to a Military appropriations bill sponsored by a left wing congressman named Boland that all but guaranteed Communist infiltration to Central America and true to form the left wing media blew it up into Iran/Contra. Reagan still triumphed on that issue.
Click to expand...



Drop the ideological names and pay attention to the actions.

Reagan's economy benefited from ridiculous defecit spending.
Reagan bailout out the uninsured savings and loans.
Reagan used tariff threats to get Japanese cars built in the south.

Not very Conservative things I think but still what he did.

Ridiculous on that savings and loan thing also but hey, conservative or liberal I dunno. It just "made it go away" for a future generation to pay off.


----------



## Dante

Meathead said:


> Forget it. Whining about Reagan's successes is not going to make Obama look any better.



step up your game above the 7th grade level and maybe you'll get a response that will make you look better...or not.

It costs nothing to overlook most of your inane posts


----------



## Oldstyle

Dante said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing myopic but your post.
> 
> After Bush won in 2004 and the public sickened with the GOP the Democrats won 2006, 2008, 2012. The Tea Party had their 15 minutes of infamy in 2010. The GOP not only lost to an incumbent President with the economy still struggling, who promised to raise taxes, but the GOP also lost House and Senate seats in 2012. This does not bode well for a 2014 surge.
> 
> Look at the latest Obama moves. Instead of acting like a lame duck, Obama has become more confident and the Democrats are looking better than the GOP.
> 
> Look at the latest economic battles where Obama got the GOP to raise taxes when they said they would not.
> 
> I'd say your post is not only myopic but dumb as shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, Dante but didn't Barack Obama run on a theme of a balanced approach to fixing the deficit...a combination of tax increases and spending cuts?
> 
> So the GOP caved and gave him the tax increases he wanted...
> 
> The balls now in his court as we await the spending cuts to "balance" things out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the GOP propose what it is THEY want to cut and the President and Democrats will compromise.
> 
> The President and Democrats laid out what taxes they wanted raised. GOP's turn to step up to the plate.
Click to expand...


Now THAT is some amusing stuff!  The GOP proposed spending cuts in the deal to avert the fiscal cliff and got $1 in cuts from Obama and the Democrats for every $43 dollars that Barry, Harry and Nancy got in tax increases.  That was what "compromise" means to Barack Obama!  $1 vs. $43...that's what progressives view as "balance".

So how about the Democrats step up to the plate...actually pass a budget and then show us where they are willing to make REAL cuts to government?  They got their tax increases.  Now let's see where they are willing to make spending cuts.

The ball is in Barack Obama's court...
He's the one who ran on a "balanced" approach to correcting the deficit.  Now let's see the balance...


----------



## Dante

Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.

They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?


----------



## Meathead

Dante said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget it. Whining about Reagan's successes is not going to make Obama look any better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> step up your game above the 7th grade level and maybe you'll get a response that will make you look better...or not.
> 
> It costs nothing to overlook most of your inane posts
Click to expand...

You do understand why I responded the way I did then. Good!


----------



## Oldstyle

Dante said:


> Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.
> 
> They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?



They want to cut entitlements, Dante.  If we don't the whole house of cards falls down.  The CBO has made it quite clear that we can't tax our way out of this...yet that's all that this Administration is willing to do.  

The cuts have to be made...but Barry doesn't have the political backbone to do it.  Instead he keeps kicking the can down the road while he continues to try and add MORE entitlements to what we already can't afford.  Now it's universal pre-school on the taxpayer's dime.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.
> 
> They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want to cut entitlements, Dante.  If we don't the whole house of cards falls down.  The CBO has made it quite clear that we can't tax our way out of this...yet that's all that this Administration is willing to do.
> 
> *The cuts have to be made*...but Barry doesn't have the political backbone to do it.  Instead *he keeps kicking the can down the road while he continues to try and add MORE entitlements *to what we already can't afford.  Now it's universal pre-school on the taxpayer's dime.
Click to expand...


One wonders if Reagan had the "backbone do it"? 
To quote Adams correctly, facts are stubborn things...

*Reagan's promises*
  1. Reduce federal spending
  2. Reduce income taxes
   3. Reduce regulation
   4. Reduce inflation

*Reagan's actual performance* as rated when he left office (some records have been broken)

  1. Promise to reduce federal spendinga. Tripled national debt from $900kk to $2.8kkk in eight years, raising it from 26%GDP to 41%GDP; before Reagan the fastest tripling of peacetime national debt took 31 years
            b. Doubled foreign aid $10kk to $22kk
            c. 53% increase in on budget federal spending; 60% gross increase in federal spending
            d. 230,000 more CIVILIAn federal employees
  e. Doubled subsidies to defense firms lobbying congress
            f. More than doubled farm subsidies
            g. Doubled subsidies to educational unions
            h. Signed pay parity bills​2. Reduce income taxes create prosperitya. Largest across the board tax increase in US history (TERFA) 1982
  b. Largest middle class tax increase in US history (TRA) 1986
  c. Unemployment AVERAGED 7.5%, the highest ever eight year average
  d. Real rate of GDP growth 2.8% vs 3.4% under Carter
  e. Productivity growth 1.4% vs 1.9% under Carter​3. Reduce regulationa. First federal bailout of private banks (S&Ls)
  b. First federal bailouts of Wall Street (FED buying private sector securities)​4. Reduce inflationa. Borrowed money to hide the inflationary effects of changing economy toward asset base
  b. Changed character of US job base from industrial to retail (MLM type instead of production)
  c. Changed statistical bases for recording official numbers​Summary on Reagan

  Reagan delivered higher taxes to working class Americans, lower taxes on people and corporations exploiting American workers, and he did it with a smile, hitting every mark on his stage. In sum Reagan   was a shallow thinking gladhanding corporate shill; Otis Chandler hired him to beat Pat Brown in California, then handed his boy off to Don Regan. Reagan's stage managers kept him center stage shadow boxing a bankrupt  and tottering empire to the applause of halfwit America, while they worked behind the scenes with corrupt congresses to loot the federal treasury. By the time he left office WF Buckley and Barry Goldwater had come to regret ever supporting Reagan. All that kept them silient in public was their own complicity in electing someone that stupid and weak.  
*
Exective abstract: During Reagan's terms clowns entertained cheering fools while knaves looted the bank. *

  A footnote: Reagan's acting chops were not recognized in life; in real time he fooled that segment who could be fooled. That was then. An important measure of the worth of a person is whether they continue to buy the Legend of Ronald Reagan or not.


----------



## Meathead

When you find yourself in the position of trying proving someone was not a great president, you've pretty much already lost the game. It's a bitch, idn't it?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow



Many of us were there, sport. 

Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 1988 your boy *Reagan was the biggest peacetime spender in US history* (and through 2001, as a pct of GDP, the second biggest spender overall - after his personal hero, FDR). 

Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world. 

In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.  


With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are  really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some  political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate  EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us were there, sport.
> 
> Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 2001 your boy Reagan was the second biggest spender in history - after his personal hero, FDR.
> 
> Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world.
> 
> In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.
> 
> 
> With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are  really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some  political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate  EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.
Click to expand...


Congress controls spending.

Reagan was not a dictator.

He revitalized the US economy and defeated the USSR freeing tens of million, ironically the decedents of the people that FDR helped enslave


----------



## editec

Reagan's 50% tax INCREASE saved social security.

For that every citizen ought to be grateful.


----------



## Meathead

We can all copy and paste. If you are interested in Reagan, his administration and his legacy, follow the link. Cherry-picking and whining about some aspects of an era of success in US and world history does little to blemish the achievements of a great president:

*Ronald Reagan won the U.S. presidency in 1980, at the end of a decade of humiliation and frustration for the American people. Using his affable personality as a potent political weapon, Reagan helped to restore confidence in the country's future and went on to convert millions of Americans to his conservative political ideology. During the 1980s, Reagan oversaw a sustained economic recovery, driven primarily by one of the great bull markets of all time on Wall Street. Soaring profits in the stock market minted millionaires by the thousands, lending the Reagan era a certain gold-rush aura as more people attained spectacular wealth than ever before in American history. Looking beyond America's borders, the 1980s brought first heightened tension and then unexpected victory in the decades-old Cold War with the Soviet Union; the peaceful collapse of the global Communist bloc Reagan once denounced as an "Evil Empire" stood as a monumental triumph in American foreign policy.

Economic and diplomatic successes notwithstanding, Reagan's presidency still had its flaws&#8212;a widening gulf between the rich and ordinary working Americans, some serious foreign-policy blunders, and worsening race relations. Despite these limitations, Reagan left office with high approval ratings and today many Americans rank him among the greatest presidents ever. Perhaps most importantly, Reagan's powerful ideology continues to shape the contours of American politics to the present day. There is a strong case to be made that we're all still living in the Age of Reagan today.

Why Should I Care?

Ronald Reagan was the most important and influential president of the last sixty years&#8230; at least. Beloved by Republicans, loathed by liberals, Ronald Reagan turned half a century of political and economic orthodoxy on its head, converting millions of Americans from Roosevelt Democrats into Reagan conservatives. More than any other single individual, Ronald Reagan is responsible for the conservative ascendancy in American politics that has continued to this day. 

Whether you love Reagan or you hate him, you are living in the world that Ronald Reagan built. 

Read on to learn how he built it. And why.*

The Reagan Era


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us were there, sport.
> 
> Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 2001 your boy Reagan was the second biggest spender in history - after his personal hero, FDR.
> 
> Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world.
> 
> In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.
> 
> 
> With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are  really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some  political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate  EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress controls spending.
> 
> Reagan was not a dictator.
> 
> He revitalized the US economy and defeated the USSR freeing tens of million, ironically the decedents of the people that FDR helped enslave
Click to expand...


You may well be that uninformed about Reagan's off stage friendships with Tip O'Neill and Walter Mondale given the failure of public education in America since Reagan traded well paying blue collar jobs for military toys, doubled subsidies to educational unions, and so on, so there is no need to dwell on what you don't know. 

You appear to have some understanding that congress is involved in budgets, so let's go there...

Why didn't Republicans gain in congress and take the senate in 2012?  

The message here, sport, is you can't have it both ways. Reagan was a filthy god damned big spending scum, that is a fact; and so was his political heir, Bill Clinton. It is probably asking too much for halfwit America to understand that Clinton and Reagan were political twins; so again, we don't need to dwell on that.

Still it seems fair to ask why Republicans can't make the sale to voters on reigning big spending lying assholes like Reagan and Clinton or the Bush League - or their political successor, Obama? 

In other words we all know what these people are. Why can't nutballs make the sale to voters on getting tight fisted people into congress, where as you suggest, spending ought to be controlled.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

The only true phrase in your post and your cite is "We are all living in the world".

Reagan built nothing. He destroyed some of the economic safeguards instilled after 1929 and Clinton destroyed the rest. The Bush League pissed what was left down the drain and Obama appears to be finishing the job on the middle class, burning taxpayer cash in numbnut ways that Reagan and Clinton could only dream about.  

One wishes one had sufficient command of the English language to convey the degree of sadness reading bullshit like "Reagan built... [something good]" instills in the rational mind. 

On the other hand, if everyone understood reality competition for top private sector jobs would be even more brutal, so in the end these things work out for the best.

=============================================

On edit: to jroc's blizzard of momentary statistics: see my post on the summary results of the presidency of the filthy god damned scum, Reagan. Here is how it works, chief: presidents cut 1% while halfwit America is watching, then behind the scenes add more than 1% back in. For those with rudimentary math skills, that is a spending increase.

Here is an example everyone should be able to capiche: Reagan blabbermouthed against ethanol subsidies, then signed an increase that would have embarrassed Dick Cheney who in his time blew every CEO of the seven sisters.  

And the sum of the EVIDENCE PROVES that the bobble headed gladhanding New Dealer Reagan did as a matter of fact increase peacetime spending more than any president in United State history, fantasies and delusions of halfwit America notwithstanding.


----------



## Jroc

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us were there, sport.
> 
> Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 1988 your boy *Reagan was the biggest peacetime spender in US history* (and through 2001, as a pct of GDP, the second biggest spender overall - after his personal hero, FDR).
> 
> Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world.
> 
> In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.
> 
> 
> With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are  really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some  political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate  EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.
Click to expand...


Reagan's cuts..



> President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in one of his terms (a total of 40.1 percent during his second term).
> 
> President Reagan is the only president to have cut the budget of the Department of Transportation. He cut it by 10.5 percent during his first term and by 7.5 percent during his second term.
> 
> During his first term in office, President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6 percent, while President Nixon increased it (that is the education part of what was then the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) by 19.1 percent. That budget increased by 22.2 percent under Bush 41 and by 38.5 percent under Carter. Our current president has increased it by a whooping 67.6 percent.
> Reagan managed to cut the budget of the Department of Commerce by 29 percent in constant dollars during his first term and by 3 percent during his second one. President Clinton by contrast increased the departments budget by 24 percent in his first term and then by 96.7 percent in his second term.
> 
> President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Agriculture by 24 percent during his second term in office.
> President Reagan never cut the budgets of the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, or State.
> 
> *Change in Real Spending for Each Presidential Term since LBJ*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Table 2: How Many Departments' and Agencies' Budgets Have They Cut?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Table 3: Change in Real Spending for Selected Departments and Agencies in Each Presidential Term since LBJ



President Reagan, Champion Budget-Cutter - Economics - AEI


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us were there, sport.
> 
> Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 2001 your boy Reagan was the second biggest spender in history - after his personal hero, FDR.
> 
> Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world.
> 
> In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.
> 
> 
> With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are  really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some  political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate  EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress controls spending.
> 
> Reagan was not a dictator.
> 
> He revitalized the US economy and defeated the USSR freeing tens of million, ironically the decedents of the people that FDR helped enslave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may well be that uninformed about Reagan's off stage friendships with Tip O'Neill and Walter Mondale given the failure of public education in America since Reagan traded well paying blue collar jobs for military toys, doubled subsidies to educational unions, and so on, so there is no need to dwell on what you don't know.
> 
> You appear to have some understanding that congress is involved in budgets, so let's go there...
> 
> Why didn't Republicans gain in congress and take the senate in 2012?
> 
> The message here, sport, is you can't have it both ways. Reagan was a filthy god damned big spending scum, that is a fact; and so was his political heir, Bill Clinton. It is probably asking too much for halfwit America to understand that Clinton and Reagan were political twins; so again, we don't need to dwell on that.
> 
> Still it seems fair to ask why Republicans can't make the sale to voters on reigning big spending lying assholes like Reagan and Clinton or the Bush League - or their political successor, Obama?
> 
> In other words we all know what these people are. Why can't nutballs make the sale to voters on getting tight fisted people into congress, where as you suggest, spending ought to be controlled.
Click to expand...


What happened to talking about Reagan? Yes Tom Delay sucked and Dubya would be in Dante's 9th Circle, that's not the point. I'm thinking Newt's Congress and Reagan Presidency might have been a dream team, but we'll never know

Reagan build up on some of the military innovation started by Carter

Reagan controlled only one branch of government and was an experienced negotiator. His 2 main goals were: Revitalize US economy and defeat USSR, he got them both. He asked for more but had to settle for being one of the greatest presidents in this nations history especially considering the times and the people he had to contend with


----------



## Jroc

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.
> 
> They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want to cut entitlements, Dante.  If we don't the whole house of cards falls down.  The CBO has made it quite clear that we can't tax our way out of this...yet that's all that this Administration is willing to do.
> 
> *The cuts have to be made*...but Barry doesn't have the political backbone to do it.  Instead *he keeps kicking the can down the road while he continues to try and add MORE entitlements *to what we already can't afford.  Now it's universal pre-school on the taxpayer's dime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One wonders if Reagan had the "backbone do it"?
> To quote Adams correctly, facts are stubborn things...
> 
> *Reagan's promises*
> 1. Reduce federal spending
> 2. Reduce income taxes
> 3. Reduce regulation
> 4. Reduce inflation
> 
> *Reagan's actual performance* as rated when he left office (some records have been broken)
> 
> 1. Promise to reduce federal spendinga. Tripled national debt from $900kk to $2.8kkk in eight years, raising it from 26%GDP to 41%GDP; before Reagan the fastest tripling of peacetime national debt took 31 years
> b. Doubled foreign aid $10kk to $22kk
> c. 53% increase in on budget federal spending; 60% gross increase in federal spending
> d. 230,000 more CIVILIAn federal employees
> e. Doubled subsidies to defense firms lobbying congress
> f. More than doubled farm subsidies
> g. Doubled subsidies to educational unions
> h. Signed pay parity bills​2. Reduce income taxes create prosperitya. Largest across the board tax increase in US history (TERFA) 1982
> b. Largest middle class tax increase in US history (TRA) 1986
> c. Unemployment AVERAGED 7.5%, the highest ever eight year average
> d. Real rate of GDP growth 2.8% vs 3.4% under Carter
> e. Productivity growth 1.4% vs 1.9% under Carter​3. Reduce regulationa. First federal bailout of private banks (S&Ls)
> b. First federal bailouts of Wall Street (FED buying private sector securities)​4. Reduce inflationa. Borrowed money to hide the inflationary effects of changing economy toward asset base
> b. Changed character of US job base from industrial to retail (MLM type instead of production)
> c. Changed statistical bases for recording official numbers​Summary on Reagan
> 
> *Reagan delivered higher taxes to working class Americans, lower taxes on people and corporations exploiting American workers*, and he did it with a smile, hitting every mark on his stage. In sum Reagan   was a shallow thinking gladhanding corporate shill; Otis Chandler hired him to beat Pat Brown in California, then handed his boy off to Don Regan. Reagan's stage managers kept him center stage shadow boxing a bankrupt  and tottering empire to the applause of halfwit America, while they worked behind the scenes with corrupt congresses to loot the federal treasury. By the time he left office WF Buckley and Barry Goldwater had come to regret ever supporting Reagan. All that kept them silient in public was their own complicity in electing someone that stupid and weak.
> *
> Exective abstract: During Reagan's terms clowns entertained cheering fools while knaves looted the bank. *
> 
> A footnote: Reagan's acting chops were not recognized in life; in real time he fooled that segment who could be fooled. That was then. An important measure of the worth of a person is whether they continue to buy the Legend of Ronald Reagan or not.
Click to expand...






> When President Reagan came to Washington in 1981, the top 1% of income earners paid 17.6% of all income taxes.  By 2007, after a quarter century of tax rate cuts under Reaganomics, the top 1% paid 40.4% of all income taxes, close to twice their share of income.
> 
> In part, that was because at the lower tax rates the higher income earners took so much more of their incomes in more flexible taxable income rather than in tax exempt forms.  That has been erroneously disparaged as the rich getting richer under Reaganomics, when it was just the same income in different forms.  At the lower rates, upper income earners did invest and otherwise work to earn more, which of course is exactly the desired effect of the rate cuts, and so paid higher taxes on the resulting incomes.  This is why Jack Kemp always used to say if you want to soak the rich, cut their tax rates.
> 
> Indeed, by 2007 that 40.4% of income taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners was more than the income taxes paid by the bottom 95% combined.  That is because Reagan and his Republicans cut taxes sharply for those lower income earners as well.
> 
> The origins of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower income people, can be found in Ronald Reagans famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, where he proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare.  As President, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%.  He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets.
> 
> In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for middle and moderate income earners all the way down to 15%. That act also doubled the personal exemption, which benefitted the more moderate income workers the most.
> 
> Newt Gingrichs Contract with America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people.  President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit.  Of course, as explained above, those credits did not involve pro-growth incentives.  But they did reduce taxes for more moderate income workers.  Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%.  By contrast, he cut the top rate for the highest income workers by just 11.6%, from 39.6% to 35%.
> 
> *The end result of these Reagan Republican tax policies is that federal income taxes were abolished for the poor and working class, and almost abolished for the middle class.  Many conservatives do not think it was a good idea to exempt so many from paying any income taxes at all.  Nevertheless, the point is that the charge that the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich is factually groundless.*



Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Fallacies Offered By The Left - Forbes


----------



## Stephanie

Meathead said:


> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.



yep, isn't is sweet


----------



## Jroc

> *A cautionary tale*
> 
> Leading the nation through hard times wasn't easy. We'd like to suggest that President Obama take a closer look at how President Reagan dealt with that "economic hardship," and how he steered the nation toward what would turn into its longest peacetime economic expansion. It's a cautionary tale &#8212; one that involves the greatest domestic error of his administration.
> 
> In 1981, President Reagan's plan for revitalizing the economy was a four-fold one:
> 
> 1) Reduce tax rates across the board.
> 
> 2) Decrease unnecessary regulations.
> 
> 3) Work with the Federal Reserve to maintain stable monetary policy.
> 
> 4) Slow the growth of federal spending.
> 
> President Reagan got his tax-rate cuts through Congress later that year. But because they were being phased in gradually, the economic pain they were designed to alleviate lingered well into 1982. High deficits persisted, and he faced enormous pressure to raise taxes.
> 
> The president had no interest in increasing taxes, but he agreed to consider some kind of compromise with Congress. His representatives began meeting with members of House Speaker Tip O'Neill's team to find some way to hammer out a deficit-reduction pact. So began what, in our opinion, became the "Debacle of 1982."
> 
> From the outset, the basic idea of the GOP participants was to trade some kind of concessions on the tax front for a Democratic agreement on spending cutbacks. The negotiators knew that Ronald Reagan would be hard to sell on any tax hikes. So they included a ploy they felt might overcome his resistance: a large reduction in federal spending in return for a modest rise in business (but not individual) taxes.
> 
> *The ratio in the final deal &#8212; the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) &#8212; was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, most of the president's colleagues signed on. He disliked the tax hikes, of course, but he agreed to it as well.*
> *The cuts never came*
> 
> 
> You don't have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted &#8212; Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal &#8212; but the promised budget cuts never materialized. After the tax bill passed, some legislators of both parties even claimed that there had been no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio.
> 
> In fact, spending for fiscal year 1983 was some $48 billion higher than the budget targets, and no progress was made in lowering the deficit. Even tax receipts for that year went down &#8212; a lingering effect of the recession, which the additional business taxes did nothing to redress.
> 
> Fortunately, the individual income tax-rate reductions that had been passed the year before remained intact. And as they took effect, the economy began its remarkable turnaround. The recovery of 1983-84 was strong enough that it paved the way for President Reagan's landslide election to a second term.



Column: Will Obama ever learn economics from Reagan? - USATODAY.com


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan was there when "it wasn't easy" is our reality as someone above suggested with different phraseology attempting to sell vinegar as wine. Bullshit artists like Peg Noonan and Josh Gilder will be surprised to learn that Reagan took credit for the speeches they wrote, for example. The man lived in a fantasy world. 

In homes unaffected by divorce a man's children tell us a lot about the man. Reagan was a terrible parent according to the children he did not abandon. There is no evidence anywhere of Reagan having a warm personal relationship with anyone. Nancy was basically a support person after she stopped fucking Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis hoping for movie parts. 

As jroc's post just above indicates, Reagan was all hat and no cattle. He spent and he spent and didn't give a shit about cuts. Most street beggars don't accept checks, so one would hope presidents had that much sense. 

Again, as jroc's post proves, the New Dealer Reagan was all about the spending on credit and as cluelss about paying the bills as any other shill for corporate America, say, his political successors, Clinton, Junior Bush and Obama.


----------



## Stephanie

Obama will never be a Reagan..

Reagan cared about people and the country and that was a man who could speak, wrote his own speeches..

Obama reads scripted sermons written for him and hates everything about us or he wouldn't see a need, to transform us with his ugly "visions"


----------



## Toronado3800

Meathead said:


> When you find yourself in the position of trying proving someone was not a great president, you've pretty much already lost the game. It's a bitch, idn't it?



Positives and negatives.  

Facts vs spin.

Seems Reagans accomplishments in the economic world are largely based on his New Deal upbringings and anyone who supports the Reagan revival should also have an FDR bumper sticker.

Maybe Reagan was a social conservative.....his people did give lip service to abortion and I remember some PMRC stuff.

Still the more I review Reagan the more interesting he was.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan was there when "it wasn't easy" is our reality as someone above suggested with different phraseology attempting to sell vinegar as wine.
> 
> As jroc's post just above indicates, Reagan was all hat and no cattle. He spent and he spent and didn't give a shit about cuts. Most street beggars don't accept checks, so one would hope presidents had that much sense.
> 
> Again, as jroc's post proves, the New Dealer Reagan was all about the spending on credit and as cluelss about paying the bills as any other shill for corporate America, say, his political successors, Clinton, Junior Bush and Obama.



Reagan was a New Dealer like Jake Starkey is a Republican


----------



## Jroc

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan was there when "it wasn't easy" is our reality as someone above suggested with different phraseology attempting to sell vinegar as wine. Bullshit artists like Peg Noonan and Josh Gilder will be surprised to learn that Reagan took credit for the speeches they wrote, for example. The man lived in a fantasy world.
> 
> In homes unaffected by divorce a man's children tell us a lot about the man. Reagan was a terrible parent according to the children he did not abandon. There is no evidence anywhere of Reagan having a warm personal relationship with anyone. Nancy was basically a support person after she stopped fucking Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis hoping for movie parts.
> 
> As jroc's post just above indicates, Reagan was all hat and no cattle. He spent and he spent and didn't give a shit about cuts. Most street beggars don't accept checks, so one would hope presidents had that much sense.
> 
> Again, as jroc's post proves, the New Dealer Reagan was all about the spending on credit and as cluelss about paying the bills as any other shill for corporate America, say, his political successors, Clinton, Junior Bush and Obama.



it seems we get new nutjobs every day on this board


----------



## Toronado3800

Stephanie said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep, isn't is sweet
Click to expand...


Hello Stephanie.

Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?

His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)

Did he outlaw abortion?

Cancel the B1 Bomber?  Oh wait, ooops.

See that ship in my avitar?  Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?


----------



## Toronado3800

Dante said:


> Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.
> 
> They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?





CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow



Wait!  If Congress was all powerful then:

Reagan was not the great communicator

Congress gets the credit for the economic revival

Congress gets the credit for the end.of the Cold War




Hey, how about that decision to undermine the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?  Well, they weren't communists we were supporting lol.


----------



## Jroc

Toronado3800 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep, isn't is sweet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Stephanie.
> 
> Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?
> 
> His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)
> 
> Did he outlaw abortion?
> 
> Cancel the B1 Bomber?  Oh wait, ooops.
> 
> See that ship in my avitar?  Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?
Click to expand...


Reagans policies helped create 7 trillion dollars in new wealth in this country...the president can't outlaw abortion what are you talking about?


----------



## Meathead

Meathead said:


> We can all copy and paste. If you are interested in Reagan, his administration and his legacy, follow the link. Cherry-picking and whining about some aspects of an era of success in US and world history does little to blemish the achievements of a great president:
> 
> *Ronald Reagan won the U.S. presidency in 1980, at the end of a decade of humiliation and frustration for the American people. Using his affable personality as a potent political weapon, Reagan helped to restore confidence in the country's future and went on to convert millions of Americans to his conservative political ideology. During the 1980s, Reagan oversaw a sustained economic recovery, driven primarily by one of the great bull markets of all time on Wall Street. Soaring profits in the stock market minted millionaires by the thousands, lending the Reagan era a certain gold-rush aura as more people attained spectacular wealth than ever before in American history. Looking beyond America's borders, the 1980s brought first heightened tension and then unexpected victory in the decades-old Cold War with the Soviet Union; the peaceful collapse of the global Communist bloc Reagan once denounced as an "Evil Empire" stood as a monumental triumph in American foreign policy.
> 
> Economic and diplomatic successes notwithstanding, Reagan's presidency still had its flawsa widening gulf between the rich and ordinary working Americans, some serious foreign-policy blunders, and worsening race relations. Despite these limitations, Reagan left office with high approval ratings and today many Americans rank him among the greatest presidents ever. Perhaps most importantly, Reagan's powerful ideology continues to shape the contours of American politics to the present day. There is a strong case to be made that we're all still living in the Age of Reagan today.
> 
> Why Should I Care?
> 
> Ronald Reagan was the most important and influential president of the last sixty years at least. Beloved by Republicans, loathed by liberals, Ronald Reagan turned half a century of political and economic orthodoxy on its head, converting millions of Americans from Roosevelt Democrats into Reagan conservatives. More than any other single individual, Ronald Reagan is responsible for the conservative ascendancy in American politics that has continued to this day.
> 
> Whether you love Reagan or you hate him, you are living in the world that Ronald Reagan built.
> 
> Read on to learn how he built it. And why.*
> 
> The Reagan Era





Toronado3800 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep, isn't is sweet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello Stephanie.
> 
> Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?
> 
> His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)
> 
> Did he outlaw abortion?
> 
> Cancel the B1 Bomber?  Oh wait, ooops.
> 
> See that ship in my avitar?  Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out. Become informed instead of cherry-picking hackneyed left-wing talking points on the man and the legend.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

When people like me are described as nutjobs, people like you should probably be nervous for the nation. 

To recap the presidency of Ronald Reagan: 

Promise: cut government
Reality: hired 230,000 ADDITIONAL civilian government workers 

Promise: control govamet spending
Reality: tripled the national debt in PEACETIME, something nutballs can't get their minds around

Promise: deregulation
Reality: increased corporate welfare more than any president before Junebug Bush

Promise: less government interference
Reality: first two finance bailouts; Wall Street 1987, S&Ls 1988

Promise: lower taxes
Reality: the largest tax increases in history on the middle class (1982, 1988)

And on and on; more false promises than Clinton, another pathological fake. Among the highest compliments in America today is having a nutball call one a "nutjob"; the only higher compliment is having a fake liberal meritocrat call one a teabagger. In other words when the clueless won't associate with one, one's world is self cleansing. 

That doesn't fix anything, but it does clear the path.


----------



## Jroc

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> When people like me are described as nutjobs, people like you should probably be nervous for the nation.
> 
> To recap the presidency of Ronald Reagan:
> 
> Promise: cut government
> Reality: hired 230,000 ADDITIONAL civilian government workers
> 
> Promise: control govamet spending
> Reality: tripled the national debt in PEACETIME, something nutballs can't get their minds around
> 
> Promise: deregulation
> Reality: increased corporate welfare more than any president before Junebug Bush
> 
> Promise: less government interference
> Reality: first two finance bailouts; Wall Street 1987, S&Ls 1988
> 
> Promise: lower taxes
> Reality: the largest tax increases in history on the middle class (1982, 1988)
> 
> And on and on; more false promises than Clinton, another pathological fake. Among the highest compliments in America today is having a nutball call one a "nutjob"; the only higher compliment is having a fake liberal meritocrat call one a teabagger. In other words when the clueless won't associate with one, one's world is self cleansing.
> 
> That doesn't fix anything, but it does clear the path.



What were the tax rates before and after Reagan idiot? Youre a joke, total government spending went up because? Reagan couldn't get all his spending cuts as has already been pointed out earlier. The increase in defense spending was well worth it as the Soviet Union lost the cold war because of it


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Here is the reality, jroc: you people are still looking for a promised land that never existed. Good luck. 

Meanwhile, folks like me who spotted Reagan as a confidence man, basically a hired hatchet, before he left California, and understood that Reagan was about Reagan - exactly as his children, the ones he didn't abandon, have made clear. You folks seem to be happy eating his shit. 

Folks like me? Not so much. 

The last highly competent American to be president was the last decent president: IKE. It tickles me to see all you acolytes wandering around your spiritual deserts lost looking for the promised land your icons led you down the garden path in search of. How you can post one of Reagan's SIGNED blank checks and blame congress is a mystery to rational people. In fairness Clinton signed bills Reagan could only dream about, so these two are basically political twins. And yet one imagines most nutballs and fake liberals are too entranced by the voices in their heads to admit the striking number of political similarities in their icons. What is hilarious is how well each understood - and exploited - the vulnerabilities of the weaker minds in their constituencies while moving toward identical objectives. 

The bottom line, ace: your icon never had a clue; there was no promised land. Yer boy's blank checks put the United States on a path to economic disaster that his political descendents Clinton, Junebug did follow, and Obama appears all too willing to follow all the way to the bottom of the drain. 

Further, did any of your folks notice that the USSR didn't really participate in Reagan's shadow boxing events? Mostly they just kept borrowing money to buy food and essential commodities from the west. Every aware high school sophomore in America in 1980 understood that the USSR had probably never been much of a threat to the United States.


----------



## Meathead

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Here is the reality, jroc: you people are still looking for a promised land that never existed. Good luck.
> 
> Meanwhile, folks like me who spotted Reagan as a confidence man, basically a hired hatchet, before he left California, and understood that Reagan was about Reagan - exactly as his children, the ones he didn't abandon, have made clear. You folks seem to be happy eating his shit.
> 
> Folks like me? Not so much.
> 
> The last decent American to be president was the last decent president: IKE. It tickles me to see all you acolytes wandering around your spiritual deserts lost looking for the promised land your icons led you down the garden path in search of. How you can post one of Reagan's SIGNED blank checks and blame congress is a mystery to rational people. In fairness Clinton signed bills Reagan could only dream about, so these two are basically political twins. And yet one imagines most nutballs and fake liberals are too entranced by the voices in their heads to manage the facts about their icons.
> 
> The bottom line, ace: your icon never had a clue; there was no promised land. Yer boy's blank checks put the United States on a path to economic disaster that his political descendents Clinton, Junebug did follow, and Obama appears all too willing to follow all the way to the bottom of the drain.
> 
> Further, did any of your folks notice that the USSR didn't really participate in Reagan's shadow boxing events? Mostly they just kept borrowing money to buy food and essential commodities from the west. Every aware high school sophomore in America in 1980 understood that the USSR had probably never been much of a threat to the United States.


Wow, you've really got one hell of a lot to learn. Never too old, as they say. Some perhaps too stupid though. Good Luck!


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Meathead said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the reality, jroc: you people are still looking for a promised land that never existed. Good luck.
> 
> Meanwhile, folks like me who spotted Reagan as a confidence man, basically a hired hatchet, before he left California, and understood that Reagan was about Reagan - exactly as his children, the ones he didn't abandon, have made clear. You folks seem to be happy eating his shit.
> 
> Folks like me? Not so much.
> 
> The last decent American to be president was the last decent president: IKE. It tickles me to see all you acolytes wandering around your spiritual deserts lost looking for the promised land your icons led you down the garden path in search of. How you can post one of Reagan's SIGNED blank checks and blame congress is a mystery to rational people. In fairness Clinton signed bills Reagan could only dream about, so these two are basically political twins. And yet one imagines most nutballs and fake liberals are too entranced by the voices in their heads to manage the facts about their icons.
> 
> The bottom line, ace: your icon never had a clue; there was no promised land. Yer boy's blank checks put the United States on a path to economic disaster that his political descendents Clinton, Junebug did follow, and Obama appears all too willing to follow all the way to the bottom of the drain.
> 
> Further, did any of your folks notice that the USSR didn't really participate in Reagan's shadow boxing events? Mostly they just kept borrowing money to buy food and essential commodities from the west. Every aware high school sophomore in America in 1980 understood that the USSR had probably never been much of a threat to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you've really got one hell of a lot to learn. Never too old, as they say. Some perhaps too stupid though. Good Luck!
Click to expand...


Few have been luckier than me if one defines luck as the intersection of preparation with opportunity. However, there are hard measures most folks accept as evidence how effectively individuals apply knowledge and opinions. Don't shed any tears for me, son. It's all good.


----------



## Toronado3800

Jroc said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep, isn't is sweet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Stephanie.
> 
> Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?
> 
> His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)
> 
> Did he outlaw abortion?
> 
> Cancel the B1 Bomber?  Oh wait, ooops.
> 
> See that ship in my avitar?  Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagans policies helped create 7 trillion dollars in new wealth in this country...the president can't outlaw abortion what are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Oh, I do not disagree about the economic revival.  The New Deal worked.  So did Reagan's deficit spending programs wether they were military or domestic.  Sounds like you understand that.

Far as the abortion thing goes it also seems you are poking fun at the one issue anti abortion crowd for choosing to vote republican since a president can not outlaw abortion.  I feel a president, especially a great communicator, has a certain power to push his agenda.  Obama cared about healthcare, maybe Reagan sucked up the pro life vote while not caring about abortion.  Or he was not the great communicator.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Here is the reality, jroc: you people are still looking for a promised land that never existed. Good luck.
> 
> Meanwhile, folks like me who spotted Reagan as a confidence man, basically a hired hatchet, before he left California, and understood that Reagan was about Reagan - exactly as his children, the ones he didn't abandon, have made clear. You folks seem to be happy eating his shit.
> 
> Folks like me? Not so much.
> 
> The last highly competent American to be president was the last decent president: IKE. It tickles me to see all you acolytes wandering around your spiritual deserts lost looking for the promised land your icons led you down the garden path in search of. How you can post one of Reagan's SIGNED blank checks and blame congress is a mystery to rational people. In fairness Clinton signed bills Reagan could only dream about, so these two are basically political twins. And yet one imagines most nutballs and fake liberals are too entranced by the voices in their heads to admit the striking number of political similarities in their icons. What is hilarious is how well each understood - and exploited - the vulnerabilities of the weaker minds in their constituencies while moving toward identical objectives.
> 
> The bottom line, ace: your icon never had a clue; there was no promised land. Yer boy's blank checks put the United States on a path to economic disaster that his political descendents Clinton, Junebug did follow, and Obama appears all too willing to follow all the way to the bottom of the drain.
> 
> Further, did any of your folks notice that the USSR didn't really participate in Reagan's shadow boxing events? Mostly they just kept borrowing money to buy food and essential commodities from the west. Every aware high school sophomore in America in 1980 understood that the USSR had probably never been much of a threat to the United States.



You're g5000 other account

Do us a favor and

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAgRBq2jnz4]Original: Penn & Teller You Need To Shut The Fuck Up ! (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

How is that none of you nutballs mentioned Reagan's blanket offer of pardon to about eight million illegal aliens? That wasn't on any of your lists of Reynaldo's major accomplishments. Seems like a big oversight.  

2.9 million signed the old new dealer's offer, but the other five or six million benefited from the issue being taken off the table. 

How much do the more mathematically inclined among you nutballs believe that cost honest US citizens looking for work?


----------



## Oldstyle

What I find amusing is this sudden desire by progressives to undermine the reputation of Ronald Reagan.  Gee, guys...have the last four years of progressive control of the country been so bad that you've given up trying to tout the progressive agenda's "merits" and decided that attacking a dead guy's legacy works better for you?

I know that your flawed version of Keynesian economic policy has gone over like a lead balloon...so I'm guessing that you'd rather critique what Reagan did some thirty years ago rather than defend what Barry has been doing since his butt hit the chair in the Oval Office?  Can't say as I blame you.  I mean how many years can you get away with blaming everybody else other than your guy?  At some point it reaches the point of farce.


----------



## Stephanie

Progressives have to tear down everything this country stood for and anyone that was good for it in order to install their fascist visions on people, take Obama has a good example

and as we see they have a lot of useful tools to help


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Hopefully no one posting here is stupid enough to believe anything ever said or posted by me supports the man who hired Bush League revenant Geithner or Clintonistas like Summers. Clinton took the worst elements of ReagaNUT policy to the hoop; opening the borders to undermine American citizen labor, deregulating essential commodities to raise the price of fuel, and opening investment accounts to breaches of faith. 

There is NOTHING partisan in my attacks on Reagan or Clinton. I do associate Junebug Bush with the scum of the earth in the nutball party, however. That is because anyone anti-American enough to vote for Junebug in 2004 is basically no damned good. By then it was apparent the boy was over his head. No decent human voted for Bush in 2004. That didn't happen. 

As far as the current president? After Bush who is stupid enough to believe another neocon nutball could be elected? Thank Junebug for Obama, people.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> What I find amusing is this sudden desire by progressives to undermine the reputation of Ronald Reagan.  Gee, guys...have the last four years of progressive control of the country been so bad that you've given up trying to tout the progressive agenda's "merits" and decided that attacking a dead guy's legacy works better for you?
> 
> I know that your flawed version of Keynesian economic policy has gone over like a lead balloon...so I'm guessing that you'd rather critique what Reagan did some thirty years ago rather than defend what Barry has been doing since his butt hit the chair in the Oval Office?  Can't say as I blame you.  I mean how many years can you get away with blaming everybody else other than your guy?  At some point it reaches the point of farce.



/thread!!


----------



## Oldstyle

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Hopefully no one posting here is stupid enough to believe anything ever said or posted by me supports the man who hired Bush League revenant Geithner or Clintonistas like Summers. Clinton took the worst elements of ReagaNUT policy to the hoop; opening the borders to undermine American citizen labor, deregulating essential commodities to raise the price of fuel, and opening investment accounts to breaches of faith.
> 
> There is NOTHING partisan in my attacks on Reagan or Clinton. I do associate Junebug Bush with the scum of the earth in the nutball party, however. That is because anyone anti-American enough to vote for Junebug in 2004 is basically no damned good. By then it was apparent the boy was over his head. No decent human voted for Bush in 2004. That didn't happen.
> 
> As far as the current president? After Bush who is stupid enough to believe another neocon nutball could be elected? Thank Junebug for Obama, people.



My "choice" in 2004 was between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  As much as I didn't like many of the things that Bush was doing, Kerry by comparison would have been a jump out of the frying pan into the fire.  He's the prototypical "empty suit" albeit with a nice head of hair...a career politician who's all about John Kerry.

I'm from Massachusetts, have watched "JFK Lite" in action for thirty plus years and wouldn't put him in the Oval Office for love nor money.  I voted for George W. Bush in 2004because he was a better option than the other guy...just as I voted for Bush over Al Gore four years earlier.  With all due respect?  That doesn't disqualify me from being a "decent human".  It simply makes me a pragmatist.


----------



## Toronado3800

Oldstyle said:


> What I find amusing is this sudden desire by progressives to undermine the reputation of Ronald Reagan.  Gee, guys...have the last four years of progressive control of the country been so bad that you've given up trying to tout the progressive agenda's "merits" and decided that attacking a dead guy's legacy works better for you?
> 
> I know that your flawed version of Keynesian economic policy has gone over like a lead balloon...so I'm guessing that you'd rather critique what Reagan did some thirty years ago rather than defend what Barry has been doing since his butt hit the chair in the Oval Office?  Can't say as I blame you.  I mean how many years can you get away with blaming everybody else other than your guy?  At some point it reaches the point of farce.



I hope I am not included.  The birthday posts and all have gotten me thinking Reagan again and I revised my opinion.  I actually think better of him now.

My take may be a little different than the folks who want to pretend he was a tight small government man but that is just what I take of his budgets and deficits.  

The bailouts I have always despised and am wondering why folks prop him as a small government hero up despite them and the deficits. 

Just reality.  Reagan might have been effective.  I believe he was SOCIALLY conservative and hated the communists.

He just is a strange hero for the small government folks.


----------



## Toronado3800

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Hopefully no one posting here is stupid enough to believe anything ever said or posted by me supports the man who hired Bush League revenant Geithner or Clintonistas like Summers. Clinton took the worst elements of ReagaNUT policy to the hoop; opening the borders to undermine American citizen labor, deregulating essential commodities to raise the price of fuel, and opening investment accounts to breaches of faith.
> 
> There is NOTHING partisan in my attacks on Reagan or Clinton. I do associate Junebug Bush with the scum of the earth in the nutball party, however. That is because anyone anti-American enough to vote for Junebug in 2004 is basically no damned good. By then it was apparent the boy was over his head. No decent human voted for Bush in 2004. That didn't happen.
> 
> As far as the current president? After Bush who is stupid enough to believe another neocon nutball could be elected? Thank Junebug for Obama, people.



You are interesting and not the usual blind partisan follower!  Thank you for posting and please do so more.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Oldstyle said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully no one posting here is stupid enough to believe anything ever said or posted by me supports the man who hired Bush League revenant Geithner or Clintonistas like Summers. Clinton took the worst elements of ReagaNUT policy to the hoop; opening the borders to undermine American citizen labor, deregulating essential commodities to raise the price of fuel, and opening investment accounts to breaches of faith.
> 
> There is NOTHING partisan in my attacks on Reagan or Clinton. I do associate Junebug Bush with the scum of the earth in the nutball party, however. That is because anyone anti-American enough to vote for Junebug in 2004 is basically no damned good. By then it was apparent the boy was over his head. No decent human voted for Bush in 2004. That didn't happen.
> 
> As far as the current president? After Bush who is stupid enough to believe another neocon nutball could be elected? Thank Junebug for Obama, people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "choice" in 2004 was between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  As much as I didn't like many of the things that Bush was doing, Kerry by comparison would have been a jump out of the frying pan into the fire.  He's the prototypical "empty suit" albeit with a nice head of hair...a career politician who's all about John Kerry.
> 
> I'm from Massachusetts, have watched "JFK Lite" in action for thirty plus years and wouldn't put him in the Oval Office for love nor money.  I voted for George W. Bush in 2004because he was a better option than the other guy...just as I voted for Bush over Al Gore four years earlier.  With all due respect?  That doesn't disqualify me from being a "decent human".  It simply makes me a pragmatist.
Click to expand...


Well said from the MA personal point of view. 

My vote always went to the national interest. Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony put me off him for sure, and your assessment from a local point of view seems valid. 

Still, by 2004 it was clear that filthy little cokehead inheritor from Tejas was over his head. Kerry had been a surface based decorated Naval officer. His Winter Soldier testimony brought on the Swift Boat folks, which is how the cookie crumbles. Some people never really get out of the zone; Swift Boaters are entitled to their juvenile take. However, it wasn't much of a decision for me to pick the proven performer over the proven failure. 

In sum, the country that re elected a degenerate scum like Junebug deserves the fucking Bush League policies produced. And Obama. It is meet and right that the United States suffer the consequences of ill considered actions, whatever those consequences are. 

I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.


----------



## Dante

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.
> 
> They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want to cut entitlements, Dante.  If we don't the whole house of cards falls down.  The CBO has made it quite clear that we can't tax our way out of this...yet that's all that this Administration is willing to do.
> 
> The cuts have to be made...but Barry doesn't have the political backbone to do it.  Instead he keeps kicking the can down the road while he continues to try and add MORE entitlements to what we already can't afford.  Now it's universal pre-school on the taxpayer's dime.
Click to expand...


That is why Democrats are waiting fro the GOP leadership, not the fringe Tea Party, the GOP leadership, to spell out what cuts they desire.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Appreciate the good will.

Today's America is a nation of inward looking (self referential) couch potatoes, most of whom never took a risk outside their heads, and the ones who do take risks take stupid risks like using cellphones in cars and buying watered stocks. 

It isn't my country any more. It is a nation of wannabes. No point pretending to be happy about that.


----------



## Dante

*Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says*

Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says
Brian Faler, ©2013 Bloomberg News
Published 9:37 pm, Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Read more: Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says - SFGate

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








*We know the right wing keeps saying The Sky is Falling and and The End is Near, but reality strikes.*


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot Reagan closed loopholes and lower overall tax rates that's called tax reform unemployment went from almost 11% to just over 5% under Reagan, Reagans policy of "peace through Strength" bankrupted the Soviets while the piece of shit liberals tried to make backroom deals with them. People leaving the military because of Reagan? You're full of it Reagan, restored pride in this country, brought back our economy from the abyss, unleashed our energy production capability, he couldnt get the spending cuts he wanted because of the liberals in congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Let's look at the record:*
> 
> Spending
> 
> In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
> 
> Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government.
> 
> *Ludwig von Mises Institute | the Free Market
> 
> Advancing Austrian Economics, Liberty, and Peace for 30 years*
> 
> The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachevs visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WYsee 1983), rebel. Cheney says: Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.
> 
> Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a suicide pact. Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan wildly wrong in his dealings with the Soviets.
> 
> Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call summit fever, accusing Reagan of appeasement both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagans cutting deals with the evil empire (see March 8, 1983).
> 
> They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
> 
> Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
> ...
> [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> George Will
> 
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com
Click to expand...




> Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachevs visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WYsee 1983), rebel. Cheney says: Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.
> 
> Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a suicide pact.
> 
> Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan wildly wrong in his dealings with the Soviets.
> 
> Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call summit fever, _accusing Reagan of appeasement both of communists and of Congressional liberals,_ and protesting Reagans cutting deals with the evil empire (see March 8, 1983). _They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign _*that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.*
> 
> Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
> 
> [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]


----------



## Dante

Stephanie said:


> Obama will never be a Reagan..
> 
> Reagan cared about people and the country and that was a man who could speak, wrote his own speeches..
> 
> Obama reads scripted sermons written for him and hates everything about us or he wouldn't see a need, to transform us with his ugly "visions"



No he has no psychic advisers and he has all his marbles in his second term. Among other things he will not be drooling all over himself while not being able to remember who his cabinet secretaries are.

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. _My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true_, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan


----------



## Jroc

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> How is that none of you nutballs mentioned Reagan's blanket offer of pardon to about eight million illegal aliens? That wasn't on any of your lists of Reynaldo's major accomplishments. Seems like a big oversight.
> 
> 2.9 million signed the old new dealer's offer, but the other five or six million benefited from the issue being taken off the table.
> 
> How much do the more mathematically inclined among you nutballs believe that cost honest US citizens looking for work?




We were supposed to secure the boarder we never did, another broken promises from the liberal congress..Reagan admitted it was a mistake so we learn from that and secure the boarder


----------



## Jroc

Dante said:


> *Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says*
> 
> Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says
> Brian Faler, ©2013 Bloomberg News
> Published 9:37 pm, Tuesday, February 5, 2013
> 
> Read more: Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says - SFGate
> 
> -------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We know the right wing keeps saying The Sky is Falling and and The End is Near, but reality strikes.*



  You idiot it'll go down *slightly* then rise again after Obamacare is fully implemented as the CBO projects we have almost 70 to 80 trillion is unfunded liabilities we need to reform these entitlements or we're through as the United States of America


----------



## Dante

Jroc said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says*
> 
> Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says
> Brian Faler, ©2013 Bloomberg News
> Published 9:37 pm, Tuesday, February 5, 2013
> 
> Read more: Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says - SFGate
> 
> -------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We know the right wing keeps saying The Sky is Falling and and The End is Near, but reality strikes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot it'll go down *slightly* then rise again after Obamacare is fully implemented as the CBO projects we have almost 70 to 80 trillion is unfunded liabilities we need to reform these entitlements or we're through as the United States of America
Click to expand...


Now. What about now?

and Obama was supposed to nationalize the banking system and more. You people have run out of gas.


----------



## Jroc

Dante said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says*
> 
> Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says
> Brian Faler, ©2013 Bloomberg News
> Published 9:37 pm, Tuesday, February 5, 2013
> 
> Read more: Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says - SFGate
> 
> -------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We know the right wing keeps saying The Sky is Falling and and The End is Near, but reality strikes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot it'll go down *slightly* then rise again after Obamacare is fully implemented as the CBO projects we have almost 70 to 80 trillion is unfunded liabilities we need to reform these entitlements or we're through as the United States of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now. What about now?
> 
> and Obama was supposed to nationalize the banking system and more. You people have run out of gas.
Click to expand...


Yep.. you people only care about now, about yourself . You could give a shit about our children and the people who follow them


----------



## Dante

Jroc said:


> [
> Yep.. you people only care about now, about yourself . You could give a shit about our children and the people who follow them




Oh please!

Hiding behind "the children" now? What's next the flag? Where were you when _Columbine_ went down; when _Sandy Hook_ went down?

You're acting pathetic. Grow up.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully no one posting here is stupid enough to believe anything ever said or posted by me supports the man who hired Bush League revenant Geithner or Clintonistas like Summers. Clinton took the worst elements of ReagaNUT policy to the hoop; opening the borders to undermine American citizen labor, deregulating essential commodities to raise the price of fuel, and opening investment accounts to breaches of faith.
> 
> There is NOTHING partisan in my attacks on Reagan or Clinton. I do associate Junebug Bush with the scum of the earth in the nutball party, however. That is because anyone anti-American enough to vote for Junebug in 2004 is basically no damned good. By then it was apparent the boy was over his head. No decent human voted for Bush in 2004. That didn't happen.
> 
> As far as the current president? After Bush who is stupid enough to believe another neocon nutball could be elected? Thank Junebug for Obama, people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "choice" in 2004 was between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  As much as I didn't like many of the things that Bush was doing, Kerry by comparison would have been a jump out of the frying pan into the fire.  He's the prototypical "empty suit" albeit with a nice head of hair...a career politician who's all about John Kerry.
> 
> I'm from Massachusetts, have watched "JFK Lite" in action for thirty plus years and wouldn't put him in the Oval Office for love nor money.  I voted for George W. Bush in 2004because he was a better option than the other guy...just as I voted for Bush over Al Gore four years earlier.  With all due respect?  That doesn't disqualify me from being a "decent human".  It simply makes me a pragmatist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said from the MA personal point of view.
> 
> My vote always went to the national interest. Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony put me off him for sure, and your assessment from a local point of view seems valid.
> 
> Still, by 2004 it was clear that filthy little cokehead inheritor from Tejas was over his head. Kerry had been a surface based decorated Naval officer. His Winter Soldier testimony brought on the Swift Boat folks, which is how the cookie crumbles. Some people never really get out of the zone; Swift Boaters are entitled to their juvenile take. However, it wasn't much of a decision for me to pick the proven performer over the proven failure.
> 
> In sum, the country that re elected a degenerate scum like Junebug deserves the fucking Bush League policies produced. And Obama. It is meet and right that the United States suffer the consequences of ill considered actions, whatever those consequences are.
> 
> I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.


----------



## Dante

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.
> 
> How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.
> 
> Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.
> 
> He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.



Stupidest rant ever made against Kerry. Yeah, he volunteered to be shot at so he could make a movie 

You should be ashamed for questioning the integrity and honesty of the men who served in the boats with Kerry. You slander men who fought, got wounded and a few who died

You are nothing but an old style armchair warrior bullshit artist



> *Bronze Star*
> 
> hurlow testified, "I never heard a shot."[5] Of the three boat commanders present besides Kerry and Thurlow,* two are SBVT members who now claim that there was no hostile fire during the incident. But one of them was seriously wounded with a concussion and the other left the scene early on to accompany the wounded to safety. *
> 
> Only Kerry and Thurlow remained behind to work on damage control.[34] The other boat commander present, Don Droz, was later killed in action; *however, his widow recalls Droz's account as being consistent with Kerry's.*[35]
> 
> Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river. &#8230; When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river."[5] Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach&#8230; Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."[36]
> 
> Although it is not mentioned in Unfit for Command, Thurlow himself was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the same incident. Thurlow's citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as "despite enemy bullets flying about him" and "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire", and speaks of fire directed at "all units" of the five-boat fleet.[37] ]


 smell a rat with Swiftboaters?



> *Silver Star*
> 
> Kerry's medal citation indicates that he charged into an ambush, killing an enemy preparing to launch a rocket. In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliot wrote "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity.
> 
> On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach."[43]
> 
> 
> However, although Elliott claims that he was not in possession of the facts of the event, the original citation that Elliott wrote (which is not the citation that appears in "Unfit for Command") incorporates most of the details in the after action report. The report states that Kerry chased and shot a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. In addition, it states that the PCFs were filled with troops, that all three boats turned into the first ambush and beached, that the troops conducted the first sweep, and that while Kerry led the first landing party during the second sweep, the other landing parties and troops followed and took out the VC.
> 
> Kerry&#8217;s crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliott&#8217;s characterization of the event in his 2004 affidavits.
> 
> They contend that the enemy soldier, although wounded, was still a threat.
> 
> For example, one of them, Fred Short, said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out &#8230; he would have been about a 30-yard shot. &#8230; [T]here's no way he could miss us."[49] Del Sandusky, Kerry&#8217;s second in command, described the consequences to the lightly armored Swift Boat: "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition."[50] Another witness stated that the VC "had an entry wound at the side of his chest and exit wound at the opposite side of the chest cavity, a wound that was consistent with reports of the man turning to fire a second B-40 rocket."[51]
> 
> The only member of SBVT who was present that day, Larry Clayton Lee, has stated he believes Kerry earned the Silver Star.[7]
> 
> Another eyewitness, William Rood, a former Chicago Tribune editor, in a 2004 article gave an account that supports Kerry's version of the events of that day. Rood was commander of PCF-23, which was one of the two Swift Boats that accompanied Kerry's PCF-94.
> 
> Rood discounted several specific charges made by SBVT about the incident.
> 
> The accounts of Vietnamese witnesses are consistent on several points with Rood's. Ba Thanh, the guerrilla killed while carrying the B-40 rocket launcher, was "big and strong" and in his late 20's. Return fire was also intense, according to Vo Van Tam, who was then a local Viet Cong commander: "I led Ba Thanh's comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats." No Vietnamese witnesses saw how Thanh died or saw him being chased by an American.[57]
> 
> No individual who was present that day has disputed Kerry's version of events, nor suggested that he did not earn the Silver Star, and some said accounts given in Unfit for Command were incorrect.[57]
> 
> However, in its October 2004 documentation of its investigation of Kerry's medals, the office of the Navy inspector general described the first, longer version as the "COMUSNAVFOR Vietnam version, signed by VADM Zumwalt" and the second version as the "official version, signed by the delegated award authority, ADM Hyland, CINCPACFLT." As to the third version, the report described it as one of several "duplicate citations" that were issued in 1985 after "considerable correspondence indicating efforts over the years to chase down various citations," and stated that the ones under Lehman's name were likely signed by machine.[62] In addition, in October 2004, Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times reported:
> 
> Navy officials say that there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts were ever rescinded and that there is no evidence of misconduct in his records.
> 
> He did receive new medal citations in the mid-1980s. Officials say the Navy receives scores, and perhaps hundreds, of such requests each year from veterans who want a second copy or have lost the originals.
> 
> The citations are simply put through a machine that implants the signature of the current Navy secretary. John Lehman's signature, via a machine, appears on Mr. Kerry's new citation for his Silver Star.[63]
> 
> Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary...I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition."[64] Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of the United States Naval Forces in Vietnam at that time, signed Kerry's original Silver Star citation and defended the award in 1996, saying "It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there's any inference that the [medal] process was anything other than totally honest." Boston Herald, October 28, 1996.



John Kerry military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Kerry military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Oldstyle said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My "choice" in 2004 was between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  As much as I didn't like many of the things that Bush was doing, Kerry by comparison would have been a jump out of the frying pan into the fire.  He's the prototypical "empty suit" albeit with a nice head of hair...a career politician who's all about John Kerry.
> 
> I'm from Massachusetts, have watched "JFK Lite" in action for thirty plus years and wouldn't put him in the Oval Office for love nor money.  I voted for George W. Bush in 2004because he was a better option than the other guy...just as I voted for Bush over Al Gore four years earlier.  With all due respect?  That doesn't disqualify me from being a "decent human".  It simply makes me a pragmatist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said from the MA personal point of view.
> 
> My vote always went to the national interest. Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony put me off him for sure, and your assessment from a local point of view seems valid.
> 
> Still, by 2004 it was clear that filthy little cokehead inheritor from Tejas was over his head. Kerry had been a surface based decorated Naval officer. His Winter Soldier testimony brought on the Swift Boat folks, which is how the cookie crumbles. Some people never really get out of the zone; Swift Boaters are entitled to their juvenile take. However, it wasn't much of a decision for me to pick the proven performer over the proven failure.
> 
> In sum, the country that re elected a degenerate scum like Junebug deserves the fucking Bush League policies produced. And Obama. It is meet and right that the United States suffer the consequences of ill considered actions, whatever those consequences are.
> 
> I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.
Click to expand...


Tried to show respect for your choice in 2004. You couldn't leave it at that. 

As scummy as they are, the leaders of the Swift Boat crowd earned the right to criticize Kerry's conduct in Vietnam.  Nothing indicates you earned the right to criticize any service man's legal conduct there.  

Winter Soldier testimony and all, John Kerry is morally head and shoulders above the filthy god damned little chickenhawk slimeball fortunate son, Junebug Bush; and NOTHING we know about Kerry's life indicates he ever lived a nanosecond that  wasn't morally superior to the war mongering Oedipal wreck who invaded Iraq to show his mommy he could penetrate deeper than daddy. 

You voted for the boy. I would rather be dead than do something that despicable. Another point: the word "injury" is not on the Vietnam purple heart award. My command of the English language is not sufficient to describe the magnitude of my contempt for soldiers and civilians who use the word 'injury' to describe combat wounds.

We're done here.


----------



## Meathead

Dante said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama will never be a Reagan..
> 
> Reagan cared about people and the country and that was a man who could speak, wrote his own speeches..
> 
> Obama reads scripted sermons written for him and hates everything about us or he wouldn't see a need, to transform us with his ugly "visions"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he has no psychic advisers and he has all his marbles in his second term. Among other things he will not be drooling all over himself while not being able to remember who his cabinet secretaries are.
> 
> "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. _My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true_, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

Obama is simply not the man Reagan was, by any measure.


----------



## Jroc

Dante said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Yep.. you people only care about now, about yourself . You could give a shit about our children and the people who follow them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please!
> 
> Hiding behind "the children" now? What's next the flag? Where were you when _Columbine_ went down; when _Sandy Hook_ went down?
> 
> You're acting pathetic. Grow up.
Click to expand...


Not quite sure what those incidents have to do with spending the country into oblivion and piling impossible debt for future generations


----------



## Toronado3800

Meathead said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama will never be a Reagan..
> 
> Reagan cared about people and the country and that was a man who could speak, wrote his own speeches..
> 
> Obama reads scripted sermons written for him and hates everything about us or he wouldn't see a need, to transform us with his ugly "visions"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he has no psychic advisers and he has all his marbles in his second term. Among other things he will not be drooling all over himself while not being able to remember who his cabinet secretaries are.
> 
> "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. _My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true_, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama is simply not the man Reagan was, by any measure.
Click to expand...


In what regard was Reagan more of a man?


----------



## Meathead

Toronado3800 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he has no psychic advisers and he has all his marbles in his second term. Among other things he will not be drooling all over himself while not being able to remember who his cabinet secretaries are.
> 
> "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. _My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true_, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is simply not the man Reagan was, by any measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what regard was Reagan more of a man?
Click to expand...

I thought I made that clear. You do understand what "by any measure" means?


----------



## regent

Reagan carried his little sayings, cliches, bon mots, whatever on three by five cards.


----------



## Dante

Jroc said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Yep.. you people only care about now, about yourself . You could give a shit about our children and the people who follow them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please!
> 
> Hiding behind "the children" now? What's next the flag? Where were you when _Columbine_ went down; when _Sandy Hook_ went down?
> 
> You're acting pathetic. Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what those incidents have to do with spending the country into oblivion and piling impossible debt for future generations
Click to expand...




Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.
> 
> How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.
> 
> Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.
> 
> He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.



Stupidest rant ever made against Kerry. Yeah, he volunteered to be shot at so he could make a movie 

You should be ashamed for questioning the integrity and honesty of the men who served in the boats with Kerry. You slander men who fought, got wounded and a few who died

You are nothing but an old style armchair warrior bullshit artist



> *Bronze Star*
> 
> hurlow testified, "I never heard a shot."[5] Of the three boat commanders present besides Kerry and Thurlow,* two are SBVT members who now claim that there was no hostile fire during the incident. But one of them was seriously wounded with a concussion and the other left the scene early on to accompany the wounded to safety. *
> 
> Only Kerry and Thurlow remained behind to work on damage control.[34] The other boat commander present, Don Droz, was later killed in action; *however, his widow recalls Droz's account as being consistent with Kerry's.*[35]
> 
> Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river.  When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river."[5] Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."[36]
> 
> Although it is not mentioned in Unfit for Command, Thurlow himself was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the same incident. Thurlow's citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as "despite enemy bullets flying about him" and "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire", and speaks of fire directed at "all units" of the five-boat fleet.[37] ]


 smell a rat with Swiftboaters?



> *Silver Star*
> 
> Kerry's medal citation indicates that he charged into an ambush, killing an enemy preparing to launch a rocket. In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliot wrote "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity.
> 
> On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach."[43]
> 
> 
> However, although Elliott claims that he was not in possession of the facts of the event, the original citation that Elliott wrote (which is not the citation that appears in "Unfit for Command") incorporates most of the details in the after action report. The report states that Kerry chased and shot a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. In addition, it states that the PCFs were filled with troops, that all three boats turned into the first ambush and beached, that the troops conducted the first sweep, and that while Kerry led the first landing party during the second sweep, the other landing parties and troops followed and took out the VC.
> 
> Kerrys crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliotts characterization of the event in his 2004 affidavits.
> 
> They contend that the enemy soldier, although wounded, was still a threat.
> 
> For example, one of them, Fred Short, said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out  he would have been about a 30-yard shot.  [T]here's no way he could miss us."[49] Del Sandusky, Kerrys second in command, described the consequences to the lightly armored Swift Boat: "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition."[50] Another witness stated that the VC "had an entry wound at the side of his chest and exit wound at the opposite side of the chest cavity, a wound that was consistent with reports of the man turning to fire a second B-40 rocket."[51]
> 
> The only member of SBVT who was present that day, Larry Clayton Lee, has stated he believes Kerry earned the Silver Star.[7]
> 
> Another eyewitness, William Rood, a former Chicago Tribune editor, in a 2004 article gave an account that supports Kerry's version of the events of that day. Rood was commander of PCF-23, which was one of the two Swift Boats that accompanied Kerry's PCF-94.
> 
> Rood discounted several specific charges made by SBVT about the incident.
> 
> The accounts of Vietnamese witnesses are consistent on several points with Rood's. Ba Thanh, the guerrilla killed while carrying the B-40 rocket launcher, was "big and strong" and in his late 20's. Return fire was also intense, according to Vo Van Tam, who was then a local Viet Cong commander: "I led Ba Thanh's comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats." No Vietnamese witnesses saw how Thanh died or saw him being chased by an American.[57]
> 
> No individual who was present that day has disputed Kerry's version of events, nor suggested that he did not earn the Silver Star, and some said accounts given in Unfit for Command were incorrect.[57]
> 
> However, in its October 2004 documentation of its investigation of Kerry's medals, the office of the Navy inspector general described the first, longer version as the "COMUSNAVFOR Vietnam version, signed by VADM Zumwalt" and the second version as the "official version, signed by the delegated award authority, ADM Hyland, CINCPACFLT." As to the third version, the report described it as one of several "duplicate citations" that were issued in 1985 after "considerable correspondence indicating efforts over the years to chase down various citations," and stated that the ones under Lehman's name were likely signed by machine.[62] In addition, in October 2004, Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times reported:
> 
> Navy officials say that there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts were ever rescinded and that there is no evidence of misconduct in his records.
> 
> He did receive new medal citations in the mid-1980s. Officials say the Navy receives scores, and perhaps hundreds, of such requests each year from veterans who want a second copy or have lost the originals.
> 
> The citations are simply put through a machine that implants the signature of the current Navy secretary. John Lehman's signature, via a machine, appears on Mr. Kerry's new citation for his Silver Star.[63]
> 
> Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary...I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition."[64] Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of the United States Naval Forces in Vietnam at that time, signed Kerry's original Silver Star citation and defended the award in 1996, saying "It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there's any inference that the [medal] process was anything other than totally honest." Boston Herald, October 28, 1996.



John Kerry military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Kerry military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Oldstyle

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said from the MA personal point of view.
> 
> My vote always went to the national interest. Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony put me off him for sure, and your assessment from a local point of view seems valid.
> 
> Still, by 2004 it was clear that filthy little cokehead inheritor from Tejas was over his head. Kerry had been a surface based decorated Naval officer. His Winter Soldier testimony brought on the Swift Boat folks, which is how the cookie crumbles. Some people never really get out of the zone; Swift Boaters are entitled to their juvenile take. However, it wasn't much of a decision for me to pick the proven performer over the proven failure.
> 
> In sum, the country that re elected a degenerate scum like Junebug deserves the fucking Bush League policies produced. And Obama. It is meet and right that the United States suffer the consequences of ill considered actions, whatever those consequences are.
> 
> I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tried to show respect for your choice in 2004. You couldn't leave it at that.
> 
> As scummy as they are, the leaders of the Swift Boat crowd earned the right to criticize Kerry's conduct in Vietnam.  Nothing indicates you earned the right to criticize any service man's legal conduct there.
> 
> Winter Soldier testimony and all, John Kerry is morally head and shoulders above the filthy god damned little chickenhawk slimeball fortunate son, Junebug Bush; and NOTHING we know about Kerry's life indicates he ever lived a nanosecond that  wasn't morally superior to the war mongering Oedipal wreck who invaded Iraq to show his mommy he could penetrate deeper than daddy.
> 
> You voted for the boy. I would rather be dead than do something that despicable. Another point: the word "injury" is not on the Vietnam purple heart award. My command of the English language is not sufficient to describe the magnitude of my contempt for soldiers and civilians who use the word 'injury' to describe combat wounds.
> 
> We're done here.
Click to expand...


I hate to point out harsh reality to you, Sparky...but as an American I have the "right" to criticize anything I'd like to.  It's in the Constitution...you know that thing you swore to protect as a member of the Armed Forces?

As for your "contempt" over combat wounds?  How do you feel about a soldier who put in for a Purple Heart for a "wound" that required a bandaid?  How would you feel about one that used three such minor "combat wounds" in less than six months to secure a trip back home leaving others behind to do the fighting?  How would you feel about that same person then turning around and accusing those he left behind of committing attrocities in public "show hearings" to further a political career?

We're done here?  Really?  Says who?


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...




Dante said:


> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
> 
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com
> 
> Monday, Feb 2, 2009 03:28 AM PST
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
> With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.
> By Will Bunch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. The first Reagan salvos came from the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative think tank that also had feted the 10th anniversary of the Reagan tax cut in 1991. After its initial article slamming the Times, the foundations magazine, Policy Review, came back in July 1997 with a second piece for its 20th anniversary issue: Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?
> 
> The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagans legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong. The tone was established by none other than Reagans own son, Michael, now himself a talk-radio host, who wrote: Although my father is the one afflicted with Alzheimers disease, I sometimes think the Republicans are suffering a much greater memory loss. They have forgotten Ronald Reagans accomplishments  and that is why we have lost so many of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was hatched in the spring of 1997  and perhaps like any successful guerrilla operation, there was an element of surprise. There was no formal announcement, nothing to tip off any alarmists on the left. Rather than incorporate the Reagan project as a separate entity, which carried the potential of greater scrutiny of its operations and its finances, it was simply a unit of the group that Norquist had been overseeing for more than a decade, the Americans for Tax Reform. The Reagan Legacy Project would not even get its first mention in print until October 23, 1997  by then its first bold proposal had two key backers in Georgia Rep. Bob Barr and that states Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. They had endorsed legislation that would rename the Capitol regions busy domestic airport, Washington National, as Reagan National. The renaming would not only mean that millions of air travelers would pass through the facility named for the 40th president, but a disproportionate number would be from the nations liberal elites, especially in Big Media, who used the airports popular shuttle service. Simply put, Reagan National Airport would be a weekly thumb in the eye of the Yankee elites who were still belittling the aging Gippers presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
Click to expand...




> Conservative Opposition
> 
> Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachevs visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WYsee 1983), rebel. Cheney says: Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.
> 
> Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a suicide pact.
> 
> Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan wildly wrong in his dealings with the Soviets.
> 
> Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call summit fever, accusing Reagan of appeasement both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagans cutting deals with the evil empire (see March 8, 1983).
> 
> They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
> 
> Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
> [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]



The right wing eats their own. They resurrect Uncle Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan as heroic figures of the right


----------



## Oldstyle

Dante said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please!
> 
> Hiding behind "the children" now? What's next the flag? Where were you when _Columbine_ went down; when _Sandy Hook_ went down?
> 
> You're acting pathetic. Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what those incidents have to do with spending the country into oblivion and piling impossible debt for future generations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidest rant ever made against Kerry. Yeah, he volunteered to be shot at so he could make a movie
> 
> You should be ashamed for questioning the integrity and honesty of the men who served in the boats with Kerry. You slander men who fought, got wounded and a few who died
> 
> You are nothing but an old style armchair warrior bullshit artist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bronze Star*
> 
> hurlow testified, "I never heard a shot."[5] Of the three boat commanders present besides Kerry and Thurlow,* two are SBVT members who now claim that there was no hostile fire during the incident. But one of them was seriously wounded with a concussion and the other left the scene early on to accompany the wounded to safety. *
> 
> Only Kerry and Thurlow remained behind to work on damage control.[34] The other boat commander present, Don Droz, was later killed in action; *however, his widow recalls Droz's account as being consistent with Kerry's.*[35]
> 
> Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river.  When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river."[5] Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."[36]
> 
> Although it is not mentioned in Unfit for Command, Thurlow himself was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the same incident. Thurlow's citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as "despite enemy bullets flying about him" and "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire", and speaks of fire directed at "all units" of the five-boat fleet.[37] ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> smell a rat with Swiftboaters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Silver Star*
> 
> Kerry's medal citation indicates that he charged into an ambush, killing an enemy preparing to launch a rocket. In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliot wrote "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity.
> 
> On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach."[43]
> 
> 
> However, although Elliott claims that he was not in possession of the facts of the event, the original citation that Elliott wrote (which is not the citation that appears in "Unfit for Command") incorporates most of the details in the after action report. The report states that Kerry chased and shot a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. In addition, it states that the PCFs were filled with troops, that all three boats turned into the first ambush and beached, that the troops conducted the first sweep, and that while Kerry led the first landing party during the second sweep, the other landing parties and troops followed and took out the VC.
> 
> Kerrys crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliotts characterization of the event in his 2004 affidavits.
> 
> They contend that the enemy soldier, although wounded, was still a threat.
> 
> For example, one of them, Fred Short, said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out  he would have been about a 30-yard shot.  [T]here's no way he could miss us."[49] Del Sandusky, Kerrys second in command, described the consequences to the lightly armored Swift Boat: "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition."[50] Another witness stated that the VC "had an entry wound at the side of his chest and exit wound at the opposite side of the chest cavity, a wound that was consistent with reports of the man turning to fire a second B-40 rocket."[51]
> 
> The only member of SBVT who was present that day, Larry Clayton Lee, has stated he believes Kerry earned the Silver Star.[7]
> 
> Another eyewitness, William Rood, a former Chicago Tribune editor, in a 2004 article gave an account that supports Kerry's version of the events of that day. Rood was commander of PCF-23, which was one of the two Swift Boats that accompanied Kerry's PCF-94.
> 
> Rood discounted several specific charges made by SBVT about the incident.
> 
> The accounts of Vietnamese witnesses are consistent on several points with Rood's. Ba Thanh, the guerrilla killed while carrying the B-40 rocket launcher, was "big and strong" and in his late 20's. Return fire was also intense, according to Vo Van Tam, who was then a local Viet Cong commander: "I led Ba Thanh's comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats." No Vietnamese witnesses saw how Thanh died or saw him being chased by an American.[57]
> 
> No individual who was present that day has disputed Kerry's version of events, nor suggested that he did not earn the Silver Star, and some said accounts given in Unfit for Command were incorrect.[57]
> 
> However, in its October 2004 documentation of its investigation of Kerry's medals, the office of the Navy inspector general described the first, longer version as the "COMUSNAVFOR Vietnam version, signed by VADM Zumwalt" and the second version as the "official version, signed by the delegated award authority, ADM Hyland, CINCPACFLT." As to the third version, the report described it as one of several "duplicate citations" that were issued in 1985 after "considerable correspondence indicating efforts over the years to chase down various citations," and stated that the ones under Lehman's name were likely signed by machine.[62] In addition, in October 2004, Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times reported:
> 
> Navy officials say that there is no evidence that Mr. Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts were ever rescinded and that there is no evidence of misconduct in his records.
> 
> He did receive new medal citations in the mid-1980s. Officials say the Navy receives scores, and perhaps hundreds, of such requests each year from veterans who want a second copy or have lost the originals.
> 
> The citations are simply put through a machine that implants the signature of the current Navy secretary. John Lehman's signature, via a machine, appears on Mr. Kerry's new citation for his Silver Star.[63]
> 
> Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary...I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition."[64] Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of the United States Naval Forces in Vietnam at that time, signed Kerry's original Silver Star citation and defended the award in 1996, saying "It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there's any inference that the [medal] process was anything other than totally honest." Boston Herald, October 28, 1996.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Kerry military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> John Kerry military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Dude, John Kerry's whole life has been a pursuit of elected office.  He didn't join the Swift Boats because he was looking for "action"...he joined them because he wanted to be John F. Kennedy.  The truth is that at the time Kerry signed up for Patrol Boats they were based on an island off of the Vietnam coast and it was a cake assignment with little danger.  Imagine poor John's consternation when it was subsequently decided that the Swift Boats needed to patrol the *rivers *in South Vietnam.  OMG!  A guy could get killed doing that kind of duty and our hero didn't volunteer to get killed.  He volunteered because at that time if you wanted to go into politics you needed military service on your resume.  So what do you do if you want out?  You work the system.  You put in for three Purple Hearts in less than six months for laughably minor wounds and then you opt out of Vietnam and head back to a cushy position as an aide back in Washington DC.

But I should be "ashamed" for pointing out that John Kerry isn't much of a "hero"?  The people who should be "ashamed" are the ones that let him get away with the bullshit he's been pedaling about himself and what happened in Vietnam for all these years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan: freed tens of millions

Obama: put tens of millions in poverty, unemployment and food stamps


----------



## Dante

Every right wing whack-a-doodle-doo Kerry myth rolled up in one? 



Oldstyle said:


> Dude, John Kerry's whole life has been a pursuit of elected office.
> 
> He didn't join the Swift Boats because he was looking for "action"...he joined them because he wanted to be John F. Kennedy.  The truth is that at the time Kerry signed up for Patrol Boats they were based on an island off of the Vietnam coast and it was a cake assignment with little danger.  Imagine poor John's consternation when it was subsequently decided that the Swift Boats needed to patrol the *rivers *in South Vietnam.  OMG!  A guy could get killed doing that kind of duty and our hero didn't volunteer to get killed.  He volunteered because at that time if you wanted to go into politics you needed military service on your resume.





What imbecility. John Kerry volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. And he always had iolitical aspirations? OMFG!  Call A Fox News Alert!!!

 "There was nothing atypical about Bush joining the National Guard, which was considered a nice, safe haven from Vietnam," said Flynn, author of "The Draft, 1940-1973."

"It was Kerry who was the exception."  For the Candidates, Vietnam Choices Linger

 John Kerry's Vietnam Service Record:

February 18, 1966 &#8211; Kerry formally enlists in the U.S. Navy.

August 22, 1966 &#8211; Kerry reports for Naval Officer Candidate School at the U.S. Naval Training Center in Newport, Rhode Island.

December 16, 1966 &#8211; Kerry receives commission as an Ensign.

January 3, 1967 &#8211; Kerry reports for duty at the Naval Schools Command at Treasure Island (CA)-Takes 10 week Officer Damage Control Course.

March 22, 1967 &#8211; Reports to U.S. Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center (CA). Receives training as a Combat Information Center Watch Officer.

June 8, 1967 &#8211; Kerry reports to USS Gridley-serves in several capacities.

February 9, 1968 &#8211; USS Gridley departs for a Western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment, to engage in operations in support of the Vietnam War. Ship spends time in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam, at Subic Bay in the Philippines and in Wellington, New Zealand.

February 10, 1968 &#8211; Kerry requests duty in Vietnam He lists his first preference for a position as an officer in charge of a Swift Boat (designated PCF for Patrol Craft Fast), his second as an officer in a patrol boat (designated PBR, for Patrol Boat River) squadron.

May 27, 1968 &#8211; USS Gridley sets sail for the US.

June 6, 1968 &#8211; Kerry arrives in Long Beach the day after Senator Robert F. Kennedy is killed in Los Angeles.

June 16, 1968 &#8211; Kerry promoted to Lieutenant, Junior Grade.

July 20, 1968 &#8211; Kerry leaves Gridley for specialized training at the Naval Amphibious Base in Coronado, CA in preparation for service as commander of a Swift Boat. These unarmored, but heavily armed, fifty foot aluminum hulled patrol boats depended on speed and agility when engaging the enemy.

November 17, 1968 &#8211; Upon completion of his training, Kerry reports for duty to Coastal Squadron 1, Coastal Division 14, Cam Ranh Bay, South Vietnam.

December 1968 through January 1969 &#8211; Kerry commands PCF-44.

December 2, 1968 &#8211; Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury.

December 6, 1968 &#8211; Kerry moved to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi on Phu Quoc Island.

December 13, 1968 &#8211; Kerry moved to Coastal Division 13, Cam Ranh Bay.

December 24, 1968 &#8211; Kerry involved in combat during the Christmas Eve truce of 1968. The truce was three minutes old when mortar fire exploded around Lieutenant Kerry and his five-man crew. Reacting swiftly, John Kerry and his crew silenced the machine gun nest.

*January 22, 1969 &#8211; Kerry and other Swift boat commanders travel to Saigon for meeting with Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, Commander Naval Forces Vietnam (COMNAVFORV), and Gen. Creighton Abrams, Commander United States Military Assistance Command Vietnam (COMUSMACV).*

Late January, 1969 &#8211; Kerry joined his 5 man crew on PCF-94. 

John Kerry's Service Record


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...

You can't revise what I lived through and be factious with your comments.


----------



## regent

I think Pickens was one of those that gave a bundle of money to the swift boaters for  their version of Kerry's Vietnam experiences? 
How many purple hearts were awarded in Vietnam for injuries that never required a day in the hospital? 
The military issued medals in Vietnam on a more generous basis for morale.  
During the election the navy issued a bulletin that Kerry's medals were all in order and shippy-shape.
In any case the history books will read that Kerry went to Vietnam, saw combat and was wounded, and how will the  the Swift Boaters go into the history books?


----------



## Dante

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't revise what I lived through and be factious with your comments.
Click to expand...


Just read what was written at the time. Memory serves you poorly


----------



## Dante

regent said:


> I think Pickens was one of those that gave a bundle of money to the swift boaters for  their version of Kerry's Vietnam experiences?
> How many purple hearts were awarded in Vietnam for injuries that never required a day in the hospital?
> The military issued medals in Vietnam on a more generous basis for morale.
> During the election the navy issued a bulletin that Kerry's medals were all in order and shippy-shape.
> In any case the history books will read that Kerry went to Vietnam, saw combat and was wounded, and how will the  the Swift Boaters go into the history books?



Kerry was awarded Bronze and Silver Stars. He helped the swift Boats develop tactics that saved many an American life. He's an arrogant S.O.B., but he's not a Dick Cheney, so the right absolutely despises him


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dante said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> 
> 
> You can't revise what I lived through and be factious with your comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just read what was written at the time. Memory serves you poorly
Click to expand...


The liberal media wrote many lies on Reagan those who had to live through Reagan era know better.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dante said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Pickens was one of those that gave a bundle of money to the swift boaters for  their version of Kerry's Vietnam experiences?
> How many purple hearts were awarded in Vietnam for injuries that never required a day in the hospital?
> The military issued medals in Vietnam on a more generous basis for morale.
> During the election the navy issued a bulletin that Kerry's medals were all in order and shippy-shape.
> In any case the history books will read that Kerry went to Vietnam, saw combat and was wounded, and how will the  the Swift Boaters go into the history books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was awarded Bronze and Silver Stars. He helped the swift Boats develop tactics that saved many an American life. He's an arrogant S.O.B., but he's not a Dick Cheney, so the right absolutely despises him
Click to expand...


Oh for God's sake...I don't "despise" John Kerry!  I simply find the "war hero" narrative that was constructed by him so that he could run for political office to be a joke.  Now you're claiming that John Kerry developed Swift Boat tactics that saved many American lives?  Look, his testimony in front of the Winter Soldier Committee was total bullshit.  He lied.  Why?  Because he wanted to be the darling of the anti-war crowd and use that for a run for political office so he sold his comrades in arms down the proverbial river.  He's a man who parlayed his "war hero" status into a life long political career.


----------



## Dante

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Pickens was one of those that gave a bundle of money to the swift boaters for  their version of Kerry's Vietnam experiences?
> How many purple hearts were awarded in Vietnam for injuries that never required a day in the hospital?
> The military issued medals in Vietnam on a more generous basis for morale.
> During the election the navy issued a bulletin that Kerry's medals were all in order and shippy-shape.
> In any case the history books will read that Kerry went to Vietnam, saw combat and was wounded, and how will the  the Swift Boaters go into the history books?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was awarded Bronze and Silver Stars. He helped the swift Boats develop tactics that saved many an American life. He's an arrogant S.O.B., but he's not a Dick Cheney, so the right absolutely despises him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh for God's sake...I don't "despise" John Kerry!  I simply find the "war hero" narrative that was constructed by him so that he could run for political office to be a joke.  Now you're claiming that John Kerry developed Swift Boat tactics that saved many American lives?  Look, his testimony in front of the Winter Soldier Committee was total bullshit.  He lied.  Why?  Because he wanted to be the darling of the anti-war crowd and use that for a run for political office so he sold his comrades in arms down the proverbial river.  He's a man who parlayed his "war hero" status into a life long political career.
Click to expand...




> To his crew, Kerry was one of the most daring skippers in the US Navy, relentlessly and courageously engaging the enemy. But the battles and moral dilemmas were in shades of gray, and Kerry to this day wrestles with the scenes of death he commanded.
> 
> In an intense three months of combat following that Christmas Eve battle, Kerry often would go beyond his Navy orders and beach his boat, in one case chasing and killing a teenage Viet Cong enemy who wore only a loin cloth and carried a rocket launcher. Kerry's aggressiveness in combat caused a commanding officer to wonder whether he should be given a medal or court-martialed.
> 
> No period better captures the internal conflicts besetting John Kerry than Vietnam. He enlisted as a Navy officer candidate despite his criticisms as Yale's class orator of America's intervention in Southeast Asia. He would become a war hero, recipient of the Silver and Bronze stars, but would also become an antiwar leader, causing some former crewmates to feel he had betrayed them.


_oh boo fucking hoo._


Boston Globe Online | John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making

---

Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam war service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.

Status: _False._


----------



## Dante

*back on topic..................*

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



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't revise what I lived through and be factious with your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just read what was written at the time. Memory serves you poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The liberal media wrote many lies on Reagan those who had to live through Reagan era know better.
Click to expand...




so now George Will represents the liberal media, and none of this is true?

Conservative Opposition 

Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachevs visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WYsee 1983), rebel. Cheney says: Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.

Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a suicide pact.

Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan wildly wrong in his dealings with the Soviets.

Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call summit fever, accusing Reagan of appeasement both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagans cutting deals with the evil empire (see March 8, 1983).

They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
[Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]
George Will


----------



## Jroc

Toronado3800 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he has no psychic advisers and he has all his marbles in his second term. Among other things he will not be drooling all over himself while not being able to remember who his cabinet secretaries are.
> 
> "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. _My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true_, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is simply not the man Reagan was, by any measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what regard was Reagan more of a man?
Click to expand...



He challenged the evil Empire and won which let to the freedom of 100s of millions of people, all the while the liberals like Ted Kennedy sought to make deals with Soviets Reagan also no press on his side, unlike our current poor excuse for a president, who has his own personal propaganda machine called the mainstraim media.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]



> *Kennedy's message was simple.* He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. "The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations," the memorandum stated. "These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."
> 
> Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
> 
> First he offered to visit Moscow. "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
> 
> Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. "A direct appeal ... to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. ... If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. ... The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side."
> 
> Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time--and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.



Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes.com


----------



## Dot Com

He'd be labelled a RINO & be run out of the Primaries by today's Repubs

Fact

tissue?


----------



## Jroc

Dot Com said:


> He'd be labelled a RINO & be run out of the Primaries by today's Repubs
> 
> Fact
> 
> tissue?



Please... Tired liberal talking point


----------



## Toronado3800

Jroc said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> He'd be labelled a RINO & be run out of the Primaries by today's Repubs
> 
> Fact
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please... Tired liberal talking point
Click to expand...


Bailouts, tariffs and deficits are Republican talking points?

Claiming Ronald as an effective President is a defensible position.  Claiming him as a Conservative hero is peculiar.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dante said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was awarded Bronze and Silver Stars. He helped the swift Boats develop tactics that saved many an American life. He's an arrogant S.O.B., but he's not a Dick Cheney, so the right absolutely despises him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for God's sake...I don't "despise" John Kerry!  I simply find the "war hero" narrative that was constructed by him so that he could run for political office to be a joke.  Now you're claiming that John Kerry developed Swift Boat tactics that saved many American lives?  Look, his testimony in front of the Winter Soldier Committee was total bullshit.  He lied.  Why?  Because he wanted to be the darling of the anti-war crowd and use that for a run for political office so he sold his comrades in arms down the proverbial river.  He's a man who parlayed his "war hero" status into a life long political career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To his crew, Kerry was one of the most daring skippers in the US Navy, relentlessly and courageously engaging the enemy. But the battles and moral dilemmas were in shades of gray, and Kerry to this day wrestles with the scenes of death he commanded.
> 
> In an intense three months of combat following that Christmas Eve battle, Kerry often would go beyond his Navy orders and beach his boat, in one case chasing and killing a teenage Viet Cong enemy who wore only a loin cloth and carried a rocket launcher. Kerry's aggressiveness in combat caused a commanding officer to wonder whether he should be given a medal or court-martialed.
> 
> No period better captures the internal conflicts besetting John Kerry than Vietnam. He enlisted as a Navy officer candidate despite his criticisms as Yale's class orator of America's intervention in Southeast Asia. He would become a war hero, recipient of the Silver and Bronze stars, but would also become an antiwar leader, causing some former crewmates to feel he had betrayed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _oh boo fucking hoo._
> 
> 
> Boston Globe Online | John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making
> 
> ---
> 
> Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam war service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.
> 
> Status: _False._
Click to expand...


You can recite the "John Kerry War Hero" narrative until the cows come home, Dante and it won't change my opinion that his Purple Hearts received for wounds that were treated with bandaids is and always has been...a crock.  John Kerry went to Vietnam for one reason and one reason alone...to get something "heroic" on his resume before he went back to seek political office and he pursued that end with dogged determination.  Not by actually BEING heroic but by pestering his commanding officer for medals that countless other Vietnam vets wouldn't have even thought of requesting.

The Kerry "hero" narrative that's been told for decades is rather bizarre in that it comes from a man who was shown to have been a bald faced liar when he was testifying before that Senate committee way back when.  You see with Kerry...the truth is whatever gets him what he wants.  In his case it's gotten him a life time job in politics.


----------



## Dante

Oldstyle said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for God's sake...I don't "despise" John Kerry!  I simply find the "war hero" narrative that was constructed by him so that he could run for political office to be a joke.  Now you're claiming that John Kerry developed Swift Boat tactics that saved many American lives?  Look, his testimony in front of the Winter Soldier Committee was total bullshit.  He lied.  Why?  Because he wanted to be the darling of the anti-war crowd and use that for a run for political office so he sold his comrades in arms down the proverbial river.  He's a man who parlayed his "war hero" status into a life long political career.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To his crew, Kerry was one of the most daring skippers in the US Navy, relentlessly and courageously engaging the enemy. But the battles and moral dilemmas were in shades of gray, and Kerry to this day wrestles with the scenes of death he commanded.
> 
> In an intense three months of combat following that Christmas Eve battle, Kerry often would go beyond his Navy orders and beach his boat, in one case chasing and killing a teenage Viet Cong enemy who wore only a loin cloth and carried a rocket launcher. Kerry's aggressiveness in combat caused a commanding officer to wonder whether he should be given a medal or court-martialed.
> 
> No period better captures the internal conflicts besetting John Kerry than Vietnam. He enlisted as a Navy officer candidate despite his criticisms as Yale's class orator of America's intervention in Southeast Asia. He would become a war hero, recipient of the Silver and Bronze stars, but would also become an antiwar leader, causing some former crewmates to feel he had betrayed them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _oh boo fucking hoo._
> 
> 
> Boston Globe Online | John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making
> 
> ---
> 
> Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam war service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.
> 
> Status: _False._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can recite the "John Kerry War Hero" narrative until the cows come home, Dante and it won't change my opinion that his Purple Hearts received for wounds that were treated with bandaids is and always has been...a crock.  John Kerry went to Vietnam for one reason and one reason alone...to get something "heroic" on his resume before he went back to seek political office and he pursued that end with dogged determination.  Not by actually BEING heroic but by pestering his commanding officer for medals that countless other Vietnam vets wouldn't have even thought of requesting.
> 
> The Kerry "hero" narrative that's been told for decades is rather bizarre in that it comes from a man who was shown to have been a bald faced liar when he was testifying before that Senate committee way back when.  You see with Kerry...the truth is whatever gets him what he wants.  In his case it's gotten him a life time job in politics.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is shit, and no one is trying to change your opinion, and no one cares about your shit opinion, and I post only so when people read your shit opinion they know it's shit and they can wipe their asses with your shit opinion.

I met the very men who actually served in combat side by side in the boat with Kerry. I heard their stories. I never cared that much for Kerry and was puzzled why a seriously decorated veteran said to me with fire in his eyes "I would follow that man into hell"  that is powerful.

I also heard what Rassman had to say. He didn't even know Senator Kerry was the guy who saved his life until he saw news about Kerry and Vietnam in the media. He contacted Kerry, not the other way around. I spoke with Brinkley the Presidential historian about this. Rassman was a Republican and a Police Officer in Oregon. 

*Unlike a person with piece of shit opinions like you possess, I changed my mind about Kerry. I went from support for his candidacy to support for the man*



> Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, *"Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river.* &#8230; *When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." *Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river."[5] Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach&#8230; Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."


----------



## DougReese

Oldstyle said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My "choice" in 2004 was between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  As much as I didn't like many of the things that Bush was doing, Kerry by comparison would have been a jump out of the frying pan into the fire.  He's the prototypical "empty suit" albeit with a nice head of hair...a career politician who's all about John Kerry.
> 
> I'm from Massachusetts, have watched "JFK Lite" in action for thirty plus years and wouldn't put him in the Oval Office for love nor money.  I voted for George W. Bush in 2004because he was a better option than the other guy...just as I voted for Bush over Al Gore four years earlier.  With all due respect?  That doesn't disqualify me from being a "decent human".  It simply makes me a pragmatist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said from the MA personal point of view.
> 
> My vote always went to the national interest. Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony put me off him for sure, and your assessment from a local point of view seems valid.
> 
> Still, by 2004 it was clear that filthy little cokehead inheritor from Tejas was over his head. Kerry had been a surface based decorated Naval officer. His Winter Soldier testimony brought on the Swift Boat folks, which is how the cookie crumbles. Some people never really get out of the zone; Swift Boaters are entitled to their juvenile take. However, it wasn't much of a decision for me to pick the proven performer over the proven failure.
> 
> In sum, the country that re elected a degenerate scum like Junebug deserves the fucking Bush League policies produced. And Obama. It is meet and right that the United States suffer the consequences of ill considered actions, whatever those consequences are.
> 
> I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.
Click to expand...

He bought that camera, in Vietnam, at the PX, as did thousands of others over there. Which is to say, it was not at all unusual.

Neither are Purple Hearts for minor wounds unusual . . . . Bob Dole's 1st PH was also for a minor wound, but well deserved, as were Kerry's.

Doug Reese


----------



## Dante

DougReese said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?
> 
> 
> 
> He bought that camera, in Vietnam, at the PX, as did thousands of others over there. Which is to say, it was not at all unusual.
> 
> Neither are Purple Hearts for minor wounds unusual . . . . Bob Dole's 1st PH was also for a minor wound, but well deserved, as were Kerry's.
> 
> Doug Reese
Click to expand...




Poor Oldstyle, he's misinformed and a cowardly loser on this subject.


----------



## bodecea

whitehall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez. what a crock of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try to be specific...what exactly do you dare dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan brought the US from the brink of ruin under liberal progressive Jimmy Carter and his alcoholic brother and put pride back in the US. Reagan policies made sure that we became the last super power in the world. If you wanted to examine the eight years of any administration you could find some bills that don't quite measure up to modern scrutiny and you can cherry pick junk and spin it anyway you want to but Reagan had to deal with a radical left wing congress and he did it with style. Reagan had to compromise with the radical left and deal with an obscure amendment to a Military appropriations bill sponsored by a left wing congressman named Boland that all but guaranteed Communist infiltration to Central America and true to form the left wing media blew it up into Iran/Contra. Reagan still triumphed on that issue.
Click to expand...


I see that you believe that Jimmie Carter's brother was part of our government.   Says a great deal about your failure to grasp reality.


----------



## Oldstyle

DougReese said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said from the MA personal point of view.
> 
> My vote always went to the national interest. Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony put me off him for sure, and your assessment from a local point of view seems valid.
> 
> Still, by 2004 it was clear that filthy little cokehead inheritor from Tejas was over his head. Kerry had been a surface based decorated Naval officer. His Winter Soldier testimony brought on the Swift Boat folks, which is how the cookie crumbles. Some people never really get out of the zone; Swift Boaters are entitled to their juvenile take. However, it wasn't much of a decision for me to pick the proven performer over the proven failure.
> 
> In sum, the country that re elected a degenerate scum like Junebug deserves the fucking Bush League policies produced. And Obama. It is meet and right that the United States suffer the consequences of ill considered actions, whatever those consequences are.
> 
> I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He bought that camera, in Vietnam, at the PX, as did thousands of others over there. Which is to say, it was not at all unusual.
> 
> Neither are Purple Hearts for minor wounds unusual . . . . Bob Dole's 1st PH was also for a minor wound, but well deserved, as were Kerry's.
> 
> Doug Reese
Click to expand...


Are you really going to compare Bob Dole's injuries with John Kerry's and call both of their Purple Hearts "well deserved"?  Bob Dole was machine gunned by the Germans in World War II, a wound that left him with one arm totally useless.  John Kerry received a small sliver of shrapnel in his forearm from being too close to the grenade that "he" fired from a grenade launcher...an injury that was treated with a bandaid.  Comparing the two isn't even an "apples and oranges" type thing...it's more like a "blueberry and watermelon" type thing.


----------



## Dante

Oldstyle said:


> DougReese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> He bought that camera, in Vietnam, at the PX, as did thousands of others over there. Which is to say, it was not at all unusual.
> 
> Neither are Purple Hearts for minor wounds unusual . . . . Bob Dole's 1st PH was also for a minor wound, but well deserved, as were Kerry's.
> 
> Doug Reese
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really going to compare Bob Dole's injuries with John Kerry's and call both of their Purple Hearts "well deserved"?  Bob Dole was machine gunned by the Germans in World War II, a wound that left him with one arm totally useless.  John Kerry received a small sliver of shrapnel in his forearm from being too close to the grenade that "he" fired from a grenade launcher...an injury that was treated with a bandaid.  Comparing the two isn't even an "apples and oranges" type thing...it's more like a "blueberry and watermelon" type thing.
Click to expand...


and Dante knows Bob Dole never questioned Kerry's combat record,

Stop hiding behind the shriveled up arm of Bob Dole


----------



## DougReese

Oldstyle said:


> DougReese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> He bought that camera, in Vietnam, at the PX, as did thousands of others over there. Which is to say, it was not at all unusual.
> 
> Neither are Purple Hearts for minor wounds unusual . . . . Bob Dole's 1st PH was also for a minor wound, but well deserved, as were Kerry's.
> 
> Doug Reese
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really going to compare Bob Dole's injuries with John Kerry's and call both of their Purple Hearts "well deserved"?  Bob Dole was machine gunned by the Germans in World War II, a wound that left him with one arm totally useless.  John Kerry received a small sliver of shrapnel in his forearm from being too close to the grenade that "he" fired from a grenade launcher...an injury that was treated with a bandaid.  Comparing the two isn't even an "apples and oranges" type thing...it's more like a "blueberry and watermelon" type thing.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Bob Dole's FIRST Purple Heart, which was minor . . . and self-inflicted.

Please do your homework before sticking your foot in your mouth.

Doug Reese


----------



## Oldstyle

DougReese said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DougReese said:
> 
> 
> 
> He bought that camera, in Vietnam, at the PX, as did thousands of others over there. Which is to say, it was not at all unusual.
> 
> Neither are Purple Hearts for minor wounds unusual . . . . Bob Dole's 1st PH was also for a minor wound, but well deserved, as were Kerry's.
> 
> Doug Reese
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going to compare Bob Dole's injuries with John Kerry's and call both of their Purple Hearts "well deserved"?  Bob Dole was machine gunned by the Germans in World War II, a wound that left him with one arm totally useless.  John Kerry received a small sliver of shrapnel in his forearm from being too close to the grenade that "he" fired from a grenade launcher...an injury that was treated with a bandaid.  Comparing the two isn't even an "apples and oranges" type thing...it's more like a "blueberry and watermelon" type thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was referring to Bob Dole's FIRST Purple Heart, which was minor . . . and self-inflicted.
> 
> Please do your homework before sticking your foot in your mouth.
> 
> Doug Reese
Click to expand...


And which of John Kerry's 3 Purple Heart wounds would you like to contrast with the injury that Dole suffered for his 2nd Purple Heart?  You know the one that was so bad that Dole barely survived and then spent years in hospitals having 9 operations done?  Bob Dole "deserves" the Purple Heart he won for that injury.  The injuries that John Kerry received were so minor that he doesn't dare release his military health records.  If he ever did it would be obvious how he'd worked the system to get that "3 Purple Hearts and you're going Stateside" thing.  John Kerry's war hero status is built upon the medals he received and the stories he made up about what happened over there.  The lies that he told during his Winter Soldier testimony not only built himself up...but tore down the reputations of men who served honorably in Vietnam.  I find John Kerry to be self-serving.


----------



## gipper

Oldstyle said:


> DougReese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going to compare Bob Dole's injuries with John Kerry's and call both of their Purple Hearts "well deserved"?  Bob Dole was machine gunned by the Germans in World War II, a wound that left him with one arm totally useless.  John Kerry received a small sliver of shrapnel in his forearm from being too close to the grenade that "he" fired from a grenade launcher...an injury that was treated with a bandaid.  Comparing the two isn't even an "apples and oranges" type thing...it's more like a "blueberry and watermelon" type thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Bob Dole's FIRST Purple Heart, which was minor . . . and self-inflicted.
> 
> Please do your homework before sticking your foot in your mouth.
> 
> Doug Reese
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And which of John Kerry's 3 Purple Heart wounds would you like to contrast with the injury that Dole suffered for his 2nd Purple Heart?  You know the one that was so bad that Dole barely survived and then spent years in hospitals having 9 operations done?  Bob Dole "deserves" the Purple Heart he won for that injury.  The injuries that John Kerry received were so minor that he doesn't dare release his military health records.  If he ever did it would be obvious how he'd worked the system to get that "3 Purple Hearts and you're going Stateside" thing.  John Kerry's war hero status is built upon the medals he received and the stories he made up about what happened over there.  The lies that he told during his Winter Soldier testimony not only built himself up...but tore down the reputations of men who served honorably in Vietnam.  I find John Kerry to be self-serving.
Click to expand...


What does it say about our political system that a disgusting lying opportunist like John Kerry can become a long time senator and now secretary of state (almost POTUS)?  The man is a traitor and a fool.  

Our Founders told us our political leaders must be honorable, moral, and ethical.  How they could think politicians could be so, is beyond me.  Our political class is full of people like John F-ing Kerry (who served in Vietnam and lied about it).  They are sociopaths....not in the sense of being a serial killer, but in the sense that they will lie repeatedly to advance their cause, which is of course, self promotion and acquiring wealth and power.  

John Kerry is the poster boy for the sociopathic political class now running America.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Kerry got shot in the blooming arse by a grain of rice and came back pretending to be a War Criminal to build his creds up with the anti-American Left, now he's SecState. It's like a Synagogue making Goebbels their spokesman


----------



## Dante

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> _oh boo fucking hoo._
> 
> 
> Boston Globe Online | John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making
> 
> ---
> 
> Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam war service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.
> 
> Status: _False._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can recite the "John Kerry War Hero" narrative until the cows come home, Dante and it won't change my opinion that his Purple Hearts received for wounds that were treated with bandaids is and always has been...a crock.  John Kerry went to Vietnam for one reason and one reason alone...to get something "heroic" on his resume before he went back to seek political office and he pursued that end with dogged determination.  Not by actually BEING heroic but by pestering his commanding officer for medals that countless other Vietnam vets wouldn't have even thought of requesting.
> 
> The Kerry "hero" narrative that's been told for decades is rather bizarre in that it comes from a man who was shown to have been a bald faced liar when he was testifying before that Senate committee way back when.  You see with Kerry...the truth is whatever gets him what he wants.  In his case it's gotten him a life time job in politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is shit, and no one is trying to change your opinion, and no one cares about your shit opinion, and I post only so when people read your shit opinion they know it's shit and they can wipe their asses with your shit opinion.
> 
> I met the very men who actually served in combat side by side in the boat with Kerry. I heard their stories. I never cared that much for Kerry and was puzzled why a seriously decorated veteran said to me with fire in his eyes "I would follow that man into hell"  that is powerful.
> 
> I also heard what Rassman had to say. He didn't even know Senator Kerry was the guy who saved his life until he saw news about Kerry and Vietnam in the media. He contacted Kerry, not the other way around. I spoke with Brinkley the Presidential historian about this. Rassman was a Republican and a Police Officer in Oregon.
> 
> *Unlike a person with piece of shit opinions like you possess, I changed my mind about Kerry. I went from support for his candidacy to support for the man*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, *"Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river.*  *When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." *Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river."[5] Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

DougReese said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said from the MA personal point of view.
> 
> My vote always went to the national interest. Kerry's "Winter Soldier" testimony put me off him for sure, and your assessment from a local point of view seems valid.
> 
> Still, by 2004 it was clear that filthy little cokehead inheritor from Tejas was over his head. Kerry had been a surface based decorated Naval officer. His Winter Soldier testimony brought on the Swift Boat folks, which is how the cookie crumbles. Some people never really get out of the zone; Swift Boaters are entitled to their juvenile take. However, it wasn't much of a decision for me to pick the proven performer over the proven failure.
> 
> In sum, the country that re elected a degenerate scum like Junebug deserves the fucking Bush League policies produced. And Obama. It is meet and right that the United States suffer the consequences of ill considered actions, whatever those consequences are.
> 
> I'll leave it at that and wish you the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Jukes?  The fact that John Kerry got "decorated" and then transferred Stateside for the injuries that he incurred was a joke.  How you can refer to him as a "proven performer" mystifies me.  He used the system back then to claim 3 very minor injuries in a six month period as "Purple Heart" wounds and get the heck out of Vietnam.  Then he went back to the US and made up stuff about the people he served with committing attrocities...using his Winter Soldier testimony as his ticket into politics.  I have the ultimate respect for those that served their "country" in Vietnam but John Kerry was never about that.  He went to Vietnam to serve "himself".  He went to Vietnam toting a movie camera to capture his military career on film.  Who does that?  The fact that John Kerry is our Secretary of State disgusts me, quite frankly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He bought that camera, in Vietnam, at the PX, as did thousands of others over there. Which is to say, it was not at all unusual.
> 
> Neither are Purple Hearts for minor wounds unusual . . . . Bob Dole's 1st PH was also for a minor wound, but well deserved, as were Kerry's.
> 
> Doug Reese
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...




Dante said:


> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
> 
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com
> 
> Monday, Feb 2, 2009 03:28 AM PST
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
> With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.
> By Will Bunch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. The first Reagan salvos came from the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative think tank that also had feted the 10th anniversary of the Reagan tax cut in 1991. After its initial article slamming the Times, the foundations magazine, Policy Review, came back in July 1997 with a second piece for its 20th anniversary issue: Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?
> 
> The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagans legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong. The tone was established by none other than Reagans own son, Michael, now himself a talk-radio host, who wrote: Although my father is the one afflicted with Alzheimers disease, I sometimes think the Republicans are suffering a much greater memory loss. They have forgotten Ronald Reagans accomplishments  and that is why we have lost so many of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was hatched in the spring of 1997  and perhaps like any successful guerrilla operation, there was an element of surprise. There was no formal announcement, nothing to tip off any alarmists on the left. Rather than incorporate the Reagan project as a separate entity, which carried the potential of greater scrutiny of its operations and its finances, it was simply a unit of the group that Norquist had been overseeing for more than a decade, the Americans for Tax Reform. The Reagan Legacy Project would not even get its first mention in print until October 23, 1997  by then its first bold proposal had two key backers in Georgia Rep. Bob Barr and that states Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. They had endorsed legislation that would rename the Capitol regions busy domestic airport, Washington National, as Reagan National. The renaming would not only mean that millions of air travelers would pass through the facility named for the 40th president, but a disproportionate number would be from the nations liberal elites, especially in Big Media, who used the airports popular shuttle service. Simply put, Reagan National Airport would be a weekly thumb in the eye of the Yankee elites who were still belittling the aging Gippers presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Trajan said:


> don't be a dilettante dante, google rangering is not very productive, its just spills ones ignorance to view....



except for once,he actually went by facts for a change because any serious researcher knows all that is true.all that stuff is backed up by cold hards facts.You need to read the book Tearing Down The Reagan myth.It backs up everything he says which actual hard data.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

whitehall said:


> Geez. what a crock of crap.



coming from you,im sure he is going to take that seriously and be heartborkern over it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dante said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
Click to expand...




exactly.Yeah no wonder his user name is meathead.Pesky facts are something he is not aware of. His last year in office for the most part,his approval rating was only in the 50's.

it was only because of republican mouthpieces like rush limbaugh and media mouthpieces as well declaring he was the best president in this century that the myth has spread for so long that he was a great president.

also,throughout most of his presidency,his approval rating was only around the 50's.Matter of fact his first two years in office as this link below shows his approval rating was only at 52% which was lower than 5 modern day presidents in their first two years in office.JFK had the highest at 70%,Ike's was 66%,Bush Sr's was 61%,Clintons 55%,and even Johnson whom was considered such a lousy president had a higher rating at that time at 55%.

This link also shows how corrupt he really was.Amazing how people somehow have forgotten about his Iran/Contra scandal.

the pesky facts in this link end this nonsense that he was one of the greatest presidents ever and that he was actually the most corrupt at the time.not of all time,every president since then has been worse than the previous one.but at that time,with the exception of Nixon,Reagan was the most corrupt of them all at the time.

Reagan: Media Myth and Reality ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

whats REALLY amazing is that THIS guy is never mentioned as one of the greatest presidents of all time and REAGAN is.

America's Worst President?


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly.Yeah no wonder his user name is meathead.Pesky facts are something he is not aware of. His last year in office for the most part,his approval rating was only in the 50's.
> 
> it was only because of republican mouthpieces like rush limbaugh and media mouthpieces as well declaring he was the best president in this century that the myth has spread for so long that he was a great president.
> 
> also,throughout most of his presidency,his approval rating was only around the 50's.Matter of fact his first two years in office as this link below shows his approval rating was only at 52% which was lower than 5 modern day presidents in their first two years in office.JFK had the highest at 70%,Ike's was 66%,Bush Sr's was 61%,Clintons 55%,and even Johnson whom was considered such a lousy president had a higher rating at that time at 55%.
> 
> This link also shows how corrupt he really was.Amazing how people somehow have forgotten about his Iran/Contra scandal.
> 
> the pesky facts in this link end this nonsense that he was one of the greatest presidents ever and that he was actually the most corrupt at the time.not of all time,every president since then has been worse than the previous one.but at that time,with the exception of Nixon,Reagan was the most corrupt of them all at the time.
> 
> Reagan: Media Myth and Reality ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
> 
> whats REALLY amazing is that THIS guy is never mentioned as one of the greatest presidents of all time and REAGAN is.
> 
> America's Worst President?
Click to expand...

Here we have a post from someone who has chosen to name himself "9/11 inside job" who thinks Reagan was one of the worst presidents in US history. It's either hilarious or sad, I'm just not sure which.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly.Yeah no wonder his user name is meathead.Pesky facts are something he is not aware of. His last year in office for the most part,his approval rating was only in the 50's.
> 
> it was only because of republican mouthpieces like rush limbaugh and media mouthpieces as well declaring he was the best president in this century that the myth has spread for so long that he was a great president.
> 
> also,throughout most of his presidency,his approval rating was only around the 50's.Matter of fact his first two years in office as this link below shows his approval rating was only at 52% which was lower than 5 modern day presidents in their first two years in office.JFK had the highest at 70%,Ike's was 66%,Bush Sr's was 61%,Clintons 55%,and even Johnson whom was considered such a lousy president had a higher rating at that time at 55%.
> 
> This link also shows how corrupt he really was.Amazing how people somehow have forgotten about his Iran/Contra scandal.
> 
> the pesky facts in this link end this nonsense that he was one of the greatest presidents ever and that he was actually the most corrupt at the time.not of all time,every president since then has been worse than the previous one.but at that time,with the exception of Nixon,Reagan was the most corrupt of them all at the time.
> 
> Reagan: Media Myth and Reality ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
> 
> whats REALLY amazing is that THIS guy is never mentioned as one of the greatest presidents of all time and REAGAN is.
> 
> America's Worst President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we have a post from someone who has chosen to name himself "9/11 inside job" who thinks Reagan was one of the worst presidents in US history. It's either hilarious or sad, I'm just not sure which.
Click to expand...


way to evade those pesky facts in that link posted and change the subject when you are cornered. you sure chose the appropriate user name for yourself.at least I dont ignore those pesky facts  that you do. so typical of a reagan apologist,when cornered,evade the facts and change the subject to something irrelevent.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Thankfully Reagan didn't give a fuck about his approval rating. He was too busy checking items off his To Do List: (Defeat Soviet Communism, revitalize US economy), to worry what anyone thought about him


----------



## Dante




----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly.Yeah no wonder his user name is meathead.Pesky facts are something he is not aware of. His last year in office for the most part,his approval rating was only in the 50's.
> 
> it was only because of republican mouthpieces like rush limbaugh and media mouthpieces as well declaring he was the best president in this century that the myth has spread for so long that he was a great president.
> 
> also,throughout most of his presidency,his approval rating was only around the 50's.Matter of fact his first two years in office as this link below shows his approval rating was only at 52% which was lower than 5 modern day presidents in their first two years in office.JFK had the highest at 70%,Ike's was 66%,Bush Sr's was 61%,Clintons 55%,and even Johnson whom was considered such a lousy president had a higher rating at that time at 55%.
> 
> This link also shows how corrupt he really was.Amazing how people somehow have forgotten about his Iran/Contra scandal.
> 
> the pesky facts in this link end this nonsense that he was one of the greatest presidents ever and that he was actually the most corrupt at the time.not of all time,every president since then has been worse than the previous one.but at that time,with the exception of Nixon,Reagan was the most corrupt of them all at the time.
> 
> Reagan: Media Myth and Reality ? FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
> 
> whats REALLY amazing is that THIS guy is never mentioned as one of the greatest presidents of all time and REAGAN is.
> 
> America's Worst President?
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have a post from someone who has chosen to name himself "9/11 inside job" who thinks Reagan was one of the worst presidents in US history. It's either hilarious or sad, I'm just not sure which.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> way to evade those pesky facts in that link posted and change the subject when you are cornered. you sure chose the appropriate user name for yourself.at least I dont ignore those pesky facts  that you do. so typical of a reagan apologist,when cornered,evade the facts and change the subject to something irrelevent.
Click to expand...

Sure, all those pesky "facts" were about as valid as anything a 9/11 conspiracy theorist could come up with. Fodder for fools like yourself.


----------



## Jroc

Dante said:


>






*Ronald Reagans Biggest Mistake  According to Reagan Himself*



> According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the l986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country







> Reagan thought he was trading a small amnesty for all-important workplace enforcement and increased border security. But once the amnesty was done and multiplying far beyond expectations, the special interests went to work at killing enforcement at the employment place. The chief culprits were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and large agriculture corporations that lobbied Congress into backing off enforcement




Ronald Reagan?s Biggest Mistake ? According to Reagan Himself | Conservative Heritage Times


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> Thankfully Reagan didn't give a fuck about his approval rating. He was too busy checking items off his To Do List: (Defeat Soviet Communism, revitalize US economy), to worry what anyone thought about him



Except in the beginning he showed no interest in revitalizing the economy and because of his policys,in his first term we were not much better off than we were when Carter was President. It wasnt till the end of 83 that he took steps to reverse what he started so he could get relected a second term.Since he took steps to get revitalize it finally towards the end of 83 and it finally got better the year leading up to the election after starting off disasterous under him,americans decided to relelect him.It wasnt till his second term that the ecomony turned around.His first term,we were not any better of than we were under Carter. 

Oh and it was internal strifes within the soviet union that led to the collapse of Communism.Reagan had nothing to do with it.would have happened no matter WHO was president. Oh and these are not my words.if you do your research on this,its the words of most experts.

Gee,no wonder americans had such a low approval rating of him thoughout most his entire 8 years in office. the smart americans were sick of his incompetence and corruption.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have a post from someone who has chosen to name himself "9/11 inside job" who thinks Reagan was one of the worst presidents in US history. It's either hilarious or sad, I'm just not sure which.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> way to evade those pesky facts in that link posted and change the subject when you are cornered. you sure chose the appropriate user name for yourself.at least I dont ignore those pesky facts  that you do. so typical of a reagan apologist,when cornered,evade the facts and change the subject to something irrelevent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, all those pesky "facts" were about as valid as anything a 9/11 conspiracy theorist could come up with. Fodder for fools like yourself.
Click to expand...


again you show you have no credibility.all you do is talk about how they are not valid without even trying to refute them.thanks again for showing us that meathead fits you perfectly as a user name. oh and since you,a 9/11 COINCIDENCE THEORIST wants to talk about that as well,9/11 coincidence theorists like yourselves,like the chikenshit cowards you are,always run off with your tail between your legs everytime you are cornered with these facts in these 5 videos here in the first two posts on this thread that you guys never have any answers for and like the chickenshot cowards you are,run away from.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...solved-names-connections-details-exposed.html

you got to actually prove your opponent is wrong and instead of just assuming so.thats the number one rule in a debate.you wouldnt last one minute is a debating hall and would be laughed out of there within one minute as you have proved so well in this discussion.

congrats.

thanks for proving the truth hurts.

While fellow Reagan apologist Crusader frank shoots himself in the foot in his attempts to prove reagan was a good president,he at least TRYS to defend hs position.you like the coward you are,dont.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dante said:


> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
> 
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com
> 
> Monday, Feb 2, 2009 03:28 AM PST
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
> With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.
> By Will Bunch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons&#8217; easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. The first Reagan salvos came from the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative think tank that also had feted the 10th anniversary of the Reagan tax cut in 1991. After its initial article slamming the Times, the foundation&#8217;s magazine, Policy Review, came back in July 1997 with a second piece for its 20th anniversary issue: &#8220;Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?&#8221;
> 
> The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagan&#8217;s legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong. The tone was established by none other than Reagan&#8217;s own son, Michael, now himself a talk-radio host, who wrote: &#8220;Although my father is the one afflicted with Alzheimer&#8217;s disease, I sometimes think the Republicans are suffering a much greater memory loss. They have forgotten Ronald Reagan&#8217;s accomplishments &#8212; and that is why we have lost so many of them.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project was hatched in the spring of 1997 &#8212; and perhaps like any successful guerrilla operation, there was an element of surprise. There was no formal announcement, nothing to tip off any alarmists on the left. Rather than incorporate the Reagan project as a separate entity, which carried the potential of greater scrutiny of its operations and its finances, it was simply a unit of the group that Norquist had been overseeing for more than a decade, the Americans for Tax Reform. The Reagan Legacy Project would not even get its first mention in print until October 23, 1997 &#8212; by then its first bold proposal had two key backers in Georgia Rep. Bob Barr and that state&#8217;s Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell. They had endorsed legislation that would rename the Capitol region&#8217;s busy domestic airport, Washington National, as Reagan National. The renaming would not only mean that millions of air travelers would pass through the facility named for the 40th president, but a disproportionate number would be from the nation&#8217;s liberal elites, especially in Big Media, who used the airport&#8217;s popular shuttle service. Simply put, Reagan National Airport would be a weekly thumb in the eye of the Yankee elites who were still belittling the aging Gipper&#8217;s presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan*
Click to expand...





Too bad trolls like Whitehall and Meathead wont bother to read that book of Bunchs.I HAVE read it.TWICE!!!  and he backs it up in his footnotes with mainstream sources that talked all about those facts back then that in Reagans economy,in his first term,the economy was disasterous.He backs it all up with mainstream sources that talked about back then when it actually  happened.Looks like the truth hurts trolls like Meathead and Whitehall.

they cant face the facts that reublican mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh created the Reagan myth. like i said,the truth hurts.Pesky facts like the ones you posted in that link are something thats too complicated for trolls like Whitehall and methead.hee hee.thats why they wont read the lin,the truth hurts.hee hee.

this link here you posted as well is another great link that they of course wont read cause it has too many pesky facts for them to deal with and of course,the truth hurts them. to face these facts.hee hee.

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/02/ronald_reagan_2/


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully Reagan didn't give a fuck about his approval rating. He was too busy checking items off his To Do List: (Defeat Soviet Communism, revitalize US economy), to worry what anyone thought about him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in the beginning he showed no interest in revitalizing the economy and because of his policys,in his first term we were not much better off than we were when Carter was President. It wasnt till the end of 83 that he took steps to reverse what he started so he could get relected a second term.Since he took steps to get revitalize it finally towards the end of 83 and it finally got better the year leading up to the election after starting off disasterous under him,americans decided to relelect him.It wasnt till his second term that the ecomony turned around.His first term,we were not any better of than we were under Carter.
> 
> Oh and it was internal strifes within the soviet union that led to the collapse of Communism.Reagan had nothing to do with it.would have happened no matter WHO was president. Oh and these are not my words.if you do your research on this,its the words of most experts.
> 
> Gee,no wonder americans had such a low approval rating of him thoughout most his entire 8 years in office. the smart americans were sick of his incompetence and corruption.
Click to expand...


Total Bullshit

Reagan got ERTA passed in Summer 1981

Oh, and with Reagan leading the way, the West pushed the USSR into oblivion


----------



## LA RAM FAN

whitehall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez. what a crock of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> try to be specific...what exactly do you dare dispute?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan brought the US from the brink of ruin under liberal progressive Jimmy Carter and his alcoholic brother and put pride back in the US. Reagan policies made sure that we became the last super power in the world. If you wanted to examine the eight years of any administration you could find some bills that don't quite measure up to modern scrutiny and you can cherry pick junk and spin it anyway you want to but Reagan had to deal with a radical left wing congress and he did it with style. Reagan had to compromise with the radical left and deal with an obscure amendment to a Military appropriations bill sponsored by a left wing congressman named Boland that all but guaranteed Communist infiltration to Central America and true to form the left wing media blew it up into Iran/Contra. Reagan still triumphed on that issue.
Click to expand...


Reagan along with Bush was behind the whole Iran/Contra scandal which was a violation against the constitution,a crime he SHOULD have been impeached for but wasnt because congress was reluctant to do so after already having gone through watergate.many confessed that..

He even ADMITTED it.


nothing like hearing it from the horses mouth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully Reagan didn't give a fuck about his approval rating. He was too busy checking items off his To Do List: (Defeat Soviet Communism, revitalize US economy), to worry what anyone thought about him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in the beginning he showed no interest in revitalizing the economy and because of his policys,in his first term we were not much better off than we were when Carter was President. It wasnt till the end of 83 that he took steps to reverse what he started so he could get relected a second term.Since he took steps to get revitalize it finally towards the end of 83 and it finally got better the year leading up to the election after starting off disasterous under him,americans decided to relelect him.It wasnt till his second term that the ecomony turned around.His first term,we were not any better of than we were under Carter.
> 
> Oh and it was internal strifes within the soviet union that led to the collapse of Communism.Reagan had nothing to do with it.would have happened no matter WHO was president. Oh and these are not my words.if you do your research on this,its the words of most experts.
> 
> Gee,no wonder americans had such a low approval rating of him thoughout most his entire 8 years in office. the smart americans were sick of his incompetence and corruption.
Click to expand...


Bullshit

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully Reagan didn't give a fuck about his approval rating. He was too busy checking items off his To Do List: (Defeat Soviet Communism, revitalize US economy), to worry what anyone thought about him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in the beginning he showed no interest in revitalizing the economy and because of his policys,in his first term we were not much better off than we were when Carter was President. It wasnt till the end of 83 that he took steps to reverse what he started so he could get relected a second term.Since he took steps to get revitalize it finally towards the end of 83 and it finally got better the year leading up to the election after starting off disasterous under him,americans decided to relelect him.It wasnt till his second term that the ecomony turned around.His first term,we were not any better of than we were under Carter.
> 
> Oh and it was internal strifes within the soviet union that led to the collapse of Communism.Reagan had nothing to do with it.would have happened no matter WHO was president. Oh and these are not my words.if you do your research on this,its the words of most experts.
> 
> Gee,no wonder americans had such a low approval rating of him thoughout most his entire 8 years in office. the smart americans were sick of his incompetence and corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Not bullshit at all.His speech had nothing to do with it.again if you had bothered to read the book,you would know that most experts agree it would have happened anyways.I see the truth hurts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully Reagan didn't give a fuck about his approval rating. He was too busy checking items off his To Do List: (Defeat Soviet Communism, revitalize US economy), to worry what anyone thought about him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in the beginning he showed no interest in revitalizing the economy and because of his policys,in his first term we were not much better off than we were when Carter was President. It wasnt till the end of 83 that he took steps to reverse what he started so he could get relected a second term.Since he took steps to get revitalize it finally towards the end of 83 and it finally got better the year leading up to the election after starting off disasterous under him,americans decided to relelect him.It wasnt till his second term that the ecomony turned around.His first term,we were not any better of than we were under Carter.
> 
> Oh and it was internal strifes within the soviet union that led to the collapse of Communism.Reagan had nothing to do with it.would have happened no matter WHO was president. Oh and these are not my words.if you do your research on this,its the words of most experts.
> 
> Gee,no wonder americans had such a low approval rating of him thoughout most his entire 8 years in office. the smart americans were sick of his incompetence and corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total Bullshit
> 
> Reagan got ERTA passed in Summer 1981
> 
> Oh, and with Reagan leading the way, the West pushed the USSR into oblivion
Click to expand...


your post is whats bullshit.nope, internal strifes in the soviet union led to it,nothing to do with reagan,.deal with it. lets see,should I listen to franks rambings or what experts have said? I think I'll go by what the experts say.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dante said:


> To those who might stumble into this thread through curiosity, we ask only one thing...
> 
> notice when ideologues and tools attack yet offer no refutation or argument.
> 
> your most un-humble servant
> Dante
> 
> dD



that sure is the case with Reagan apologists trolls meathead and whitehall.at least Frank here TRYS  to counter facts and debate here  at least. those others run away like chickenshit cowards when they are confronted.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it so-called conservatives today do not get about Reagan's Presidency at the time he served?
> 
> Reagan Legacy PRoject
> 
> 1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
Click to expand...


with jake,do you REALLY have to ask? its a given he wont read that link.count on it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot Reagan closed loopholes and lower overall tax rates that's called tax reform unemployment went from almost 11% to just over 5% under Reagan, Reagan&#8217;s policy of "peace through Strength" bankrupted the Soviets while the piece of shit liberals tried to make backroom deals with them. People leaving the military because of Reagan? You're full of it Reagan, restored pride in this country, brought back our economy from the abyss, unleashed our energy production capability, he couldn&#8217;t get the spending cuts he wanted because of the liberals in congress
Click to expand...


No wonder JRock cant stand to hear the truth.He has been brainwashed that Israel is a good country advertising that  in his sig that he is a zionist the fact that he is rabid supporter of isreal.doesnt even try and hide it. 

for the people who dont get it that israel is why the world is messed up,you should all take a look at this two hour video,the facts contained in this video cant be refuted.the evidnce is overwhelming.Its a good two hour video but well worth the viewing time.


----------



## Meathead

@9/11 goofball. As with 9/11, the burden of proof is on you in light of fact and history. You seem to that the weird stuff you post as "proof positive" of your idiocies could resonate with anyone but hacks and others who should be institutionalized. 

If you come up with something less bizarre, let us know. Be warned that you'll most likely just get laughed at again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except in the beginning he showed no interest in revitalizing the economy and because of his policys,in his first term we were not much better off than we were when Carter was President. It wasnt till the end of 83 that he took steps to reverse what he started so he could get relected a second term.Since he took steps to get revitalize it finally towards the end of 83 and it finally got better the year leading up to the election after starting off disasterous under him,americans decided to relelect him.It wasnt till his second term that the ecomony turned around.His first term,we were not any better of than we were under Carter.
> 
> Oh and it was internal strifes within the soviet union that led to the collapse of Communism.Reagan had nothing to do with it.would have happened no matter WHO was president. Oh and these are not my words.if you do your research on this,its the words of most experts.
> 
> Gee,no wonder americans had such a low approval rating of him thoughout most his entire 8 years in office. the smart americans were sick of his incompetence and corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not bullshit at all.His speech had nothing to do with it.again if you had bothered to read the book,you would know that most experts agree it would have happened anyways.I see the truth hurts.
Click to expand...


Most experts said Reagan was a fool for challenging the USSR, thankfully he didn't listen to them


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public perception of Reagan and Clinton beggar reason.
> 
> Reagan was a New Dealer selling neocon dogma to halfwits as he expanded social programs and tripled the debt, while Clinton was a real ReagaNUT selling human potential horseshit to losers as he unleashed the dogs of avarice on the US working class.
> 
> Noir humor at its bleakest.
Click to expand...


finally SOMEONE who understands the REAL truth of the Reagan Presidency and Clintons as well. gives standing ovation


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> @9/11 goofball. As with 9/11, the burden of proof is on you in light of fact and history. You seem to that the weird stuff you post as "proof positive" of your idiocies could resonate with anyone but hacks and others who should be institutionalized.
> 
> If you come up with something less bizarre, let us know. Be warned that you'll most likely just get laughed at again.



translation-I meathead am exactly what you said i am 9/11. a chickenshit coward who doesnt know how to debate and cant counter facts and doesnt even try to when i am cornered so I can only fling shit in defeat like the monkey troll I am and you're right,thats why I chose this user name cause i am in fact a meathead since I dont know how to debate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except in the beginning he showed no interest in revitalizing the economy and because of his policys,in his first term we were not much better off than we were when Carter was President. It wasnt till the end of 83 that he took steps to reverse what he started so he could get relected a second term.Since he took steps to get revitalize it finally towards the end of 83 and it finally got better the year leading up to the election after starting off disasterous under him,americans decided to relelect him.It wasnt till his second term that the ecomony turned around.His first term,we were not any better of than we were under Carter.
> 
> Oh and it was internal strifes within the soviet union that led to the collapse of Communism.Reagan had nothing to do with it.would have happened no matter WHO was president. Oh and these are not my words.if you do your research on this,its the words of most experts.
> 
> Gee,no wonder americans had such a low approval rating of him thoughout most his entire 8 years in office. the smart americans were sick of his incompetence and corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Bullshit
> 
> Reagan got ERTA passed in Summer 1981
> 
> Oh, and with Reagan leading the way, the West pushed the USSR into oblivion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your post is whats bullshit.nope, internal strifes in the soviet union led to it,nothing to do with reagan,.deal with it. lets see,should I listen to franks rambings or what experts have said? I think I'll go by what the experts say.
Click to expand...


The same "Experts" who called Reagan a War Monger and Ronny Raygun for challenging the USSR are now saying "well it would have collapsed anyway"

LOLz


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dante said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget it. Whining about Reagan's successes is not going to make Obama look any better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> step up your game above the 7th grade level and maybe you'll get a response that will make you look better...or not.
> 
> It costs nothing to overlook most of your inane posts
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the GOP tell the public what they want to cut.
> 
> They w-a-n-t cuts. What do they want to cut?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They want to cut entitlements, Dante.  If we don't the whole house of cards falls down.  The CBO has made it quite clear that we can't tax our way out of this...yet that's all that this Administration is willing to do.
> 
> *The cuts have to be made*...but Barry doesn't have the political backbone to do it.  Instead *he keeps kicking the can down the road while he continues to try and add MORE entitlements *to what we already can't afford.  Now it's universal pre-school on the taxpayer's dime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One wonders if Reagan had the "backbone do it"?
> To quote Adams correctly, facts are stubborn things...
> 
> *Reagan's promises*
> 1. Reduce federal spending
> 2. Reduce income taxes
> 3. Reduce regulation
> 4. Reduce inflation
> 
> *Reagan's actual performance* as rated when he left office (some records have been broken)
> 
> 1. Promise to reduce federal spendinga. Tripled national debt from $900kk to $2.8kkk in eight years, raising it from 26%GDP to 41%GDP; before Reagan the fastest tripling of peacetime national debt took 31 years
> b. Doubled foreign aid $10kk to $22kk
> c. 53% increase in on budget federal spending; 60% gross increase in federal spending
> d. 230,000 more CIVILIAn federal employees
> e. Doubled subsidies to defense firms lobbying congress
> f. More than doubled farm subsidies
> g. Doubled subsidies to educational unions
> h. Signed pay parity bills​2. Reduce income taxes create prosperitya. Largest across the board tax increase in US history (TERFA) 1982
> b. Largest middle class tax increase in US history (TRA) 1986
> c. Unemployment AVERAGED 7.5%, the highest ever eight year average
> d. Real rate of GDP growth 2.8% vs 3.4% under Carter
> e. Productivity growth 1.4% vs 1.9% under Carter​3. Reduce regulationa. First federal bailout of private banks (S&Ls)
> b. First federal bailouts of Wall Street (FED buying private sector securities)​4. Reduce inflationa. Borrowed money to hide the inflationary effects of changing economy toward asset base
> b. Changed character of US job base from industrial to retail (MLM type instead of production)
> c. Changed statistical bases for recording official numbers​Summary on Reagan
> 
> Reagan delivered higher taxes to working class Americans, lower taxes on people and corporations exploiting American workers, and he did it with a smile, hitting every mark on his stage. In sum Reagan   was a shallow thinking gladhanding corporate shill; Otis Chandler hired him to beat Pat Brown in California, then handed his boy off to Don Regan. Reagan's stage managers kept him center stage shadow boxing a bankrupt  and tottering empire to the applause of halfwit America, while they worked behind the scenes with corrupt congresses to loot the federal treasury. By the time he left office WF Buckley and Barry Goldwater had come to regret ever supporting Reagan. All that kept them silient in public was their own complicity in electing someone that stupid and weak.
> *
> Exective abstract: During Reagan's terms clowns entertained cheering fools while knaves looted the bank. *
> 
> A footnote: Reagan's acting chops were not recognized in life; in real time he fooled that segment who could be fooled. That was then. An important measure of the worth of a person is whether they continue to buy the Legend of Ronald Reagan or not.
Click to expand...


someone else here who also understands the true Ronald Reagan presidency and is a serious reseacher.what a relief to see there others out there as well that are awake about the REAL RONALD REAGAN PRESIDENCY.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us were there, sport.
> 
> Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 2001 your boy Reagan was the second biggest spender in history - after his personal hero, FDR.
> 
> Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world.
> 
> In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.
> 
> 
> With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are  really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some  political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate  EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress controls spending.
> 
> Reagan was not a dictator.
> 
> He revitalized the US economy and defeated the USSR freeing tens of million, ironically the decedents of the people that FDR helped enslave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may well be that uninformed about Reagan's off stage friendships with Tip O'Neill and Walter Mondale given the failure of public education in America since Reagan traded well paying blue collar jobs for military toys, doubled subsidies to educational unions, and so on, so there is no need to dwell on what you don't know.
> 
> You appear to have some understanding that congress is involved in budgets, so let's go there...
> 
> Why didn't Republicans gain in congress and take the senate in 2012?
> 
> The message here, sport, is you can't have it both ways. Reagan was a filthy god damned big spending scum, that is a fact; and so was his political heir, Bill Clinton. It is probably asking too much for halfwit America to understand that Clinton and Reagan were political twins; so again, we don't need to dwell on that.
> 
> Still it seems fair to ask why Republicans can't make the sale to voters on reigning big spending lying assholes like Reagan and Clinton or the Bush League - or their political successor, Obama?
> 
> In other words we all know what these people are. Why can't nutballs make the sale to voters on getting tight fisted people into congress, where as you suggest, spending ought to be controlled.
Click to expand...


DugDale Jukes hands Frank his ass to him on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat controlled Congress failed deliver on their spending cuts, so all Reagan could do was defeat the USSR and let the US economy grow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us were there, sport.
> 
> Ronald Reagan, the man, was basically a New Deal Democrat who sold out. No one with any sense doubted Roosevelt's patriotism either. But through 1988 your boy *Reagan was the biggest peacetime spender in US history* (and through 2001, as a pct of GDP, the second biggest spender overall - after his personal hero, FDR).
> 
> Even more hilarious, Slick Clinton was an actual ReagaNUT. Reagan sold out to damage the US working class, trading well paying jobs for military toys and the delusion of brinkmanship; Clinton actually held blue collar labor in contempt and embraced the Marc Rich's of the world.
> 
> In terms of the so-called evil empire, the USSR was in places farming with horses during fuel shortages in the Reagan presidency. No one with any sense took them seriously; the cold war residue Reagan inflamed is simply proof of the genetic predisposition of halfwits to martial music and projection away from personal problems. The USSR would have fallen somewhere around the same time frame with or without the bobble headed subject here.
> 
> 
> With respect for the possibilities, it isn't clear whether you are  really that ignorant of the facts, or whether you are lying for some  political objective. In either event clear, specific facts indicate  EXACTLY what my post just above report. In your favor American public education has failed catastrophically given the number of people unable to look at the facts and separate bullshit from koolade.
Click to expand...


and again Frank gets his ass handed to him on a platter from Dugdale Jukes.


and a THIRD time as well below.

The only true phrase in your post and your cite is "We are all living in the world".

Reagan built nothing. He destroyed some of the economic safeguards instilled after 1929 and Clinton destroyed the rest. The Bush League pissed what was left down the drain and Obama appears to be finishing the job on the middle class, burning taxpayer cash in numbnut ways that Reagan and Clinton could only dream about. 

One wishes one had sufficient command of the English language to convey the degree of sadness reading bullshit like "Reagan built... [something good]" instills in the rational mind. 

On the other hand, if everyone understood reality competition for top private sector jobs would be even more brutal, so in the end these things work out for the best.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> Here is the reality, jroc: you people are still looking for a promised land that never existed. Good luck.
> 
> Meanwhile, folks like me who spotted Reagan as a confidence man, basically a hired hatchet, before he left California, and understood that Reagan was about Reagan - exactly as his children, the ones he didn't abandon, have made clear. You folks seem to be happy eating his shit.
> 
> Folks like me? Not so much.
> 
> The last highly competent American to be president was the last decent president: IKE. It tickles me to see all you acolytes wandering around your spiritual deserts lost looking for the promised land your icons led you down the garden path in search of. How you can post one of Reagan's SIGNED blank checks and blame congress is a mystery to rational people. In fairness Clinton signed bills Reagan could only dream about, so these two are basically political twins. And yet one imagines most nutballs and fake liberals are too entranced by the voices in their heads to admit the striking number of political similarities in their icons. What is hilarious is how well each understood - and exploited - the vulnerabilities of the weaker minds in their constituencies while moving toward identical objectives.
> 
> The bottom line, ace: your icon never had a clue; there was no promised land. Yer boy's blank checks put the United States on a path to economic disaster that his political descendents Clinton, Junebug did follow, and Obama appears all too willing to follow all the way to the bottom of the drain.
> 
> Further, did any of your folks notice that the USSR didn't really participate in Reagan's shadow boxing events? Mostly they just kept borrowing money to buy food and essential commodities from the west. Every aware high school sophomore in America in 1980 understood that the USSR had probably never been much of a threat to the United States.





You've done an excellent job of handing the Reagan apologists their ass to them on a platter here Dugdale,the ONLY thing you have gotten wrong so far in all your posts is the part about Ike being the last decent president.Carter was the last DECENT president we had.The last GREAT president we had was kennedy.Reagan couldnt carry JFK'S jockstrap in the myth that people have that he was the greatest president of the 19th century.

Carter is the only other president since JFK whoever tried to do the right thing about the CIA.getting rid of it.As any serious researcher knows,Jfk was assassinated cause he tried to get rid of the CIA.Carter in his last year in office,he also tried to get rid of the CIA.the CIA is an evil out of control organization that makes the third reich look like a bunch of choir boys.they are always starting fake and phony wars like vietnam.

Carter in his last year, also tried to get rid of the CIA, but he did not have enough time to implement his plan and was never able to carry it out.The government set him up with the ocotober surprise to make sure he did not get relected to be able to fulfill what he got started.Carter wasnt by any means a really good president but again,he also tried to do the right thing getting rid of the CIA and they are the reason the world is in the mess that it is today likeHello Stephanie.

Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?

His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)

Did he outlaw abortion?

Cancel the B1 Bomber? Oh wait, ooops.

See that ship in my avitar? Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy? 
__________________
well said.


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the reality, jroc: you people are still looking for a promised land that never existed. Good luck.
> 
> Meanwhile, folks like me who spotted Reagan as a confidence man, basically a hired hatchet, before he left California, and understood that Reagan was about Reagan - exactly as his children, the ones he didn't abandon, have made clear. You folks seem to be happy eating his shit.
> 
> Folks like me? Not so much.
> 
> The last highly competent American to be president was the last decent president: IKE. It tickles me to see all you acolytes wandering around your spiritual deserts lost looking for the promised land your icons led you down the garden path in search of. How you can post one of Reagan's SIGNED blank checks and blame congress is a mystery to rational people. In fairness Clinton signed bills Reagan could only dream about, so these two are basically political twins. And yet one imagines most nutballs and fake liberals are too entranced by the voices in their heads to admit the striking number of political similarities in their icons. What is hilarious is how well each understood - and exploited - the vulnerabilities of the weaker minds in their constituencies while moving toward identical objectives.
> 
> The bottom line, ace: your icon never had a clue; there was no promised land. Yer boy's blank checks put the United States on a path to economic disaster that his political descendents Clinton, Junebug did follow, and Obama appears all too willing to follow all the way to the bottom of the drain.
> 
> Further, did any of your folks notice that the USSR didn't really participate in Reagan's shadow boxing events? Mostly they just kept borrowing money to buy food and essential commodities from the west. Every aware high school sophomore in America in 1980 understood that the USSR had probably never been much of a threat to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've done an excellent job of handing the Reagan apologists their ass to them on a platter here Dugdale,the ONLY thing you have gotten wrong so far in all your posts is the part about Ike being the last decent president.Carter was the last DECENT president we had.The last GREAT president we had was kennedy.Reagan couldnt carry JFK'S jockstrap in the myth that people have that he was the greatest president of the 19th century.
> 
> Carter is the only other president since JFK whoever tried to do the right thing about the CIA.getting rid of it.As any serious researcher knows,Jfk was assassinated cause he tried to get rid of the CIA.Carter in his last year in office,he also tried to get rid of the CIA.the CIA is an evil out of control organization that makes the third reich look like a bunch of choir boys.they are always starting fake and phony wars like vietnam.
> 
> Carter in his last year, also tried to get rid of the CIA, but he did not have enough time to implement his plan and was never able to carry it out.The government set him up with the ocotober surprise to make sure he did not get relected to be able to fulfill what he got started.Carter wasnt by any means a really good president but again,he also tried to do the right thing getting rid of the CIA and they are the reason the world is in the mess that it is today likeHello Stephanie.
> 
> Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?
> 
> His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)
> 
> Did he outlaw abortion?
> 
> Cancel the B1 Bomber? Oh wait, ooops.
> 
> See that ship in my avitar? Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?
> __________________
> well said.
Click to expand...

Dingbat


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> That a filthy god damned scum like Reagan was there when "it wasn't easy" is our reality as someone above suggested with different phraseology attempting to sell vinegar as wine. Bullshit artists like Peg Noonan and Josh Gilder will be surprised to learn that Reagan took credit for the speeches they wrote, for example. The man lived in a fantasy world.
> 
> In homes unaffected by divorce a man's children tell us a lot about the man. Reagan was a terrible parent according to the children he did not abandon. There is no evidence anywhere of Reagan having a warm personal relationship with anyone. Nancy was basically a support person after she stopped fucking Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis hoping for movie parts.
> 
> As jroc's post just above indicates, Reagan was all hat and no cattle. He spent and he spent and didn't give a shit about cuts. Most street beggars don't accept checks, so one would hope presidents had that much sense.
> 
> Again, as jroc's post proves, the New Dealer Reagan was all about the spending on credit and as cluelss about paying the bills as any other shill for corporate America, say, his political successors, Clinton, Junior Bush and Obama.





Filthy god damn scum I would say is being way too kind to Reagan.Thats the understatement of the century.

This great hero the Reagan zombies worship somehow think a guy who illegally bypassed congress and violated the constitution in doing so in the Iran/Contra scandal 
pulling ala a Dick Nixon lying to the supreme court saying he had no knowledge of it and then later after the facts surfaced that he DID forcing him to have to admit he lied that he did know about it.an impeachable offense that he should have gone to jail for and been impeached for.

He does exactly what Nixon did,lie to the supreme court which Nixon almost got impeached for and had to resign because of it,yet Reagan gets off scott free and doesnt even get a slap on the wrist for and yet these Reagan apologists,these fools worship him and defend him to no end and say he is the greatest president of the 19th century.

years later,members of our corrupt congress later said they regretted not impeaching him but the reason they didnt do so was they felt america could not handle another national scandal like watergate and be able to recover from it again.so they basically sold americans down the drain letting a criminal abuse his power in office this time around instead of doing the right thing and impeaching the scumbag like they should have.

Reagan got away with all his crimes cause he had a lot of chamr and was so likeable as a person.He was liek Clinton,he  knew how to work the crowd and get people to like him cause  remember,he was a an actor. a great one at that knowing how to act and fool people all the time.Thats why trolls like meathead and whitehall here look thwe other way when he is exposed for the criminal he is.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the reality, jroc: you people are still looking for a promised land that never existed. Good luck.
> 
> Meanwhile, folks like me who spotted Reagan as a confidence man, basically a hired hatchet, before he left California, and understood that Reagan was about Reagan - exactly as his children, the ones he didn't abandon, have made clear. You folks seem to be happy eating his shit.
> 
> Folks like me? Not so much.
> 
> The last highly competent American to be president was the last decent president: IKE. It tickles me to see all you acolytes wandering around your spiritual deserts lost looking for the promised land your icons led you down the garden path in search of. How you can post one of Reagan's SIGNED blank checks and blame congress is a mystery to rational people. In fairness Clinton signed bills Reagan could only dream about, so these two are basically political twins. And yet one imagines most nutballs and fake liberals are too entranced by the voices in their heads to admit the striking number of political similarities in their icons. What is hilarious is how well each understood - and exploited - the vulnerabilities of the weaker minds in their constituencies while moving toward identical objectives.
> 
> The bottom line, ace: your icon never had a clue; there was no promised land. Yer boy's blank checks put the United States on a path to economic disaster that his political descendents Clinton, Junebug did follow, and Obama appears all too willing to follow all the way to the bottom of the drain.
> 
> Further, did any of your folks notice that the USSR didn't really participate in Reagan's shadow boxing events? Mostly they just kept borrowing money to buy food and essential commodities from the west. Every aware high school sophomore in America in 1980 understood that the USSR had probably never been much of a threat to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've done an excellent job of handing the Reagan apologists their ass to them on a platter here Dugdale,the ONLY thing you have gotten wrong so far in all your posts is the part about Ike being the last decent president.Carter was the last DECENT president we had.The last GREAT president we had was kennedy.Reagan couldnt carry JFK'S jockstrap in the myth that people have that he was the greatest president of the 19th century.
> 
> Carter is the only other president since JFK whoever tried to do the right thing about the CIA.getting rid of it.As any serious researcher knows,Jfk was assassinated cause he tried to get rid of the CIA.Carter in his last year in office,he also tried to get rid of the CIA.the CIA is an evil out of control organization that makes the third reich look like a bunch of choir boys.they are always starting fake and phony wars like vietnam.
> 
> Carter in his last year, also tried to get rid of the CIA, but he did not have enough time to implement his plan and was never able to carry it out.The government set him up with the ocotober surprise to make sure he did not get relected to be able to fulfill what he got started.Carter wasnt by any means a really good president but again,he also tried to do the right thing getting rid of the CIA and they are the reason the world is in the mess that it is today likeHello Stephanie.
> 
> Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?
> 
> His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)
> 
> Did he outlaw abortion?
> 
> Cancel the B1 Bomber? Oh wait, ooops.
> 
> See that ship in my avitar? Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?
> __________________
> well said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dingbat
Click to expand...


those are always your great comebacks when you get your ass handed to you on a platter by people like Dugdale I see.

Its probably best though that you dont try.You would just humiliate and embarrass yourself like Frank did everytime Dugdale handed his ass to him on a platter and owned him.


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've done an excellent job of handing the Reagan apologists their ass to them on a platter here Dugdale,the ONLY thing you have gotten wrong so far in all your posts is the part about Ike being the last decent president.Carter was the last DECENT president we had.The last GREAT president we had was kennedy.Reagan couldnt carry JFK'S jockstrap in the myth that people have that he was the greatest president of the 19th century.
> 
> Carter is the only other president since JFK whoever tried to do the right thing about the CIA.getting rid of it.As any serious researcher knows,Jfk was assassinated cause he tried to get rid of the CIA.Carter in his last year in office,he also tried to get rid of the CIA.the CIA is an evil out of control organization that makes the third reich look like a bunch of choir boys.they are always starting fake and phony wars like vietnam.
> 
> Carter in his last year, also tried to get rid of the CIA, but he did not have enough time to implement his plan and was never able to carry it out.The government set him up with the ocotober surprise to make sure he did not get relected to be able to fulfill what he got started.Carter wasnt by any means a really good president but again,he also tried to do the right thing getting rid of the CIA and they are the reason the world is in the mess that it is today likeHello Stephanie.
> 
> Which accomplishment? The interest I am paying on his debt of economic revivial?
> 
> His Marine Barracks security system (not his fault but hey, neither was this last embassh attack the President's fault)
> 
> Did he outlaw abortion?
> 
> Cancel the B1 Bomber? Oh wait, ooops.
> 
> See that ship in my avitar? Was that a cost effective or forward moving revival or just some deficit spending to pump the economy?
> __________________
> well said.
> 
> 
> 
> Dingbat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those are always your great comebacks when you get your ass handed to you on a platter by people like Dugdale I see.
> 
> Its probably best though that you dont try.You would just humiliate and embarrass yourself like Frank did everytime Dugdale handed his ass to him on a platter and owned him.
Click to expand...

Sorry, still a dingbat.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dingbat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those are always your great comebacks when you get your ass handed to you on a platter by people like Dugdale I see.
> 
> Its probably best though that you dont try.You would just humiliate and embarrass yourself like Frank did everytime Dugdale handed his ass to him on a platter and owned him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, still a dingbat.
Click to expand...


I rest my case.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Funny how Reagan apologists think he was one of the greatest presidents ever.Still more proof how corrupt he really was.Carter,when he got into office,he took steps to clean up the corruption going on in the CIA that went on under Nixon and then Ford,Ford in his last year in office made Bush sr the director of the CIA.Whne carter got in,he got rid of Bush and replaced him with Stansfield Turner and Carter started cleaning up the CIA getting rid of covert wars.Whne Reagan got in,he fired turner and hired Bill Casey and things went back to normal with the CIA in their clandestine wars.they were too happy to see Carter go.


Whne Bush Sr was the dirctor of the CIA.He appointed legendary CIA covert operations specialist Theodore Shackley  as associate director of operations of the CIA.Shakley believed that Turner whom Carter appointed and replaced Bush with,devasted the agency pushing out hundreds of covert officers.many being former associates of Shackleys.


----------



## Friends

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it so-called conservatives today do not get about Reagan's Presidency at the time he served?
Click to expand...

 
Most Republican activists who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 remembered the presidential election of 1964. They remembered how the hopes raised by the campaign of Barry Goldwater were painfully disappointed. President Johnson was elected by a landslide. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. The Supreme Court was already liberal and about to become more so.

When a popular movement grew against Johnson it was to the left of him, and motivated by opposition to the War in Vietnam. 

It must have seemed to ideological reactionaries that the United States had gone crazy.

When Ronald Reagan, a man as reactionary as Barry Goldwater, was elected and reelected movement reactionaries must have felt that they had died and gone to Heaven. 

For these people the 1960s and 1970 had been a terrible mistake. They viewed Reagan as the contra Moses who was about to lead the Children of Israel back to the fleshpots of Egypt. 

Social reactionaries wanted to restore the sexual and religious ethos of the 1950s. Economic reactionaries longed for the repeal of the New Deal. 

Reagan did not do that because he did not have the support. As far as the religious right was concerned he did not have the inclination. Nevertheless, movement Republicans like to pretend that it almost happened, and would have if the Dream had not been betrayed by traitors from within, and liberal elitists from without. They like to pretend that it can still happen.


----------



## Dante

Friends said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan won't answer questions, Dante.   He ran himself off a thread last night because he wouldn't or couldn't.  He just can't stand being laughed at.
> 
> Now to the point.  RR raised taxes three times, had an unemployment rate almost 1% higher than Obama, raised the deficit 16 times, cozied up to the Soviets, lied about Iran-Contra, and was responsible for hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs leaving the service because of I-C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it so-called conservatives today do not get about Reagan's Presidency at the time he served?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Republican activists who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 remembered the presidential election of 1964. They remembered how the hopes raised by the campaign of Barry Goldwater were painfully disappointed. President Johnson was elected by a landslide. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. The Supreme Court was already liberal and about to become more so.
> 
> When a popular movement grew against Johnson it was to the left of him, and motivated by opposition to the War in Vietnam.
> 
> It must have seemed to ideological reactionaries that the United States had gone crazy.
> 
> When Ronald Reagan, a man as reactionary as Barry Goldwater, was elected and reelected movement reactionaries must have felt that they had died and gone to Heaven.
> 
> For these people the 1960s and 1970 had been a terrible mistake. They viewed Reagan as the contra Moses who was about to lead the Children of Israel back to the fleshpots of Egypt.
> 
> Social reactionaries wanted to restore the sexual and religious ethos of the 1950s. Economic reactionaries longed for the repeal of the New Deal.
> 
> Reagan did not do that because he did not have the support. As far as the religious right was concerned he did not have the inclination. Nevertheless, movement Republicans like to pretend that it almost happened, and would have if the Dream had not been betrayed by traitors from within, and liberal elitists from without. They like to pretend that it can still happen.
Click to expand...


Most Republican activists who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were working overtime taking over the party and cobbling together a new right wing movement. They joined forces with NH Governor, Meldrim Thompson, Manchester 
Union Leader Publisher, William Loeb, Senator Jesse Jackson, NCPAC, Paul Weyrich, the Conservative Caucus, Howard Phllips and others...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

this thread has to be brought back since Frank is trolling with his avatar telling his blatant lies bastard reagan was the last real president we had when he was no different than all the other puppet presidents we have had since JFK-the LAST real president we had.Frank and the the reagan apologists had their asses handed to them on a platter throughout this whole thread evading facts changing the subject everytime.hee hee.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't revise what I lived through and be factious with your comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just read what was written at the time. Memory serves you poorly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The liberal media wrote many lies on Reagan those who had to live through Reagan era know better.
Click to expand...


those who lived through the reagan era remember how he betrayed the middle and lower class familys.


----------



## whitehall

The short answer...the Clinton sexual predator administration. The pretty wife of one of the FBI most wanted  fugitives flashed the Arkansas inbred Bubba and ....presto....Jon Rich was no longer a fugitive.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> this thread has to be brought back since Frank is trolling with his avatar telling his blatant lies bastard reagan was the last real president we had when he was no different than all the other puppet presidents we have had since JFK-the LAST real president we had.Frank and the the reagan apologists had their asses handed to them on a platter throughout this whole thread evading facts changing the subject everytime.hee hee.



Fuck off. I lost track of this thread because I have better things to do than correct every lie about Reagan.

 Reagan cut taxes. Fact.  The people who say Reagan raised taxes are just fucking morons


----------



## Jroc

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> this thread has to be brought back since Frank is trolling with his avatar telling his blatant lies bastard reagan was the last real president we had when he was no different than all the other puppet presidents we have had since JFK-the LAST real president we had.Frank and the the reagan apologists had their asses handed to them on a platter throughout this whole thread evading facts changing the subject everytime.hee hee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off. I lost track of this thread because I have better things to do than correct every lie about Reagan.
> 
> Reagan cut taxes. Fact.  The people who say Reagan raised taxes are just fucking morons
Click to expand...


The Reagan haters are just that haters. Liberals revise history to soot their agenda...they haft to


----------



## Jroc

9/11 inside job said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read what was written at the time. Memory serves you poorly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal media wrote many lies on Reagan those who had to live through Reagan era know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who lived through the reagan era remember how he betrayed the middle and lower class familys.
Click to expand...


 People actually moved up under Reagan unlike this pathetic poor excuse for a president we have now


----------



## Jroc

> *REAGAN&#8217;S ECONOMIC SUCCESS*
> Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
> &#8226;20 million new jobs were created.
> &#8226;Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> &#8226;The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
> &#8226;The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
> &#8226;Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
> &#8226;Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> &#8226;Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
> &#8226;The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
> &#8226;The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
> &#8226;The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
> &#8226;During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
> &#8226;In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
> &#8226;The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
> (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
> &#8226;The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
> &#8226;The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth&#8211;assets minus liabilities&#8211;of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today&#8217;s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.



Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes


----------



## Lumpy 1

Jroc said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal media wrote many lies on Reagan those who had to live through Reagan era know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who lived through the reagan era remember how he betrayed the middle and lower class familys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People actually moved up under Reagan unlike this pathetic poor excuse for a president we have now
Click to expand...


Yes indeed... I blame their parents..


----------



## editec

Meathead said:


> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.



You have been tragically misinformed, lad.

Your country needs you to _EDUCATE YOURSELF.!_

Here's a good place to START learning some REAL ECONOMIC HISTORY about *Reagan the DEFICIT SPENDING BIG GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
*

The DEFORMATION OF CAPITALISM



> When dissecting Washington politics and Wall Street deal-making Stockman naturally draws on his experience as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan and his many years as an investment banker and private equity investor, and in so doing he reflects on much of his own professional life with commendable candor.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read what was written at the time. Memory serves you poorly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal media wrote many lies on Reagan those who had to live through Reagan era know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who lived through the reagan era remember how he betrayed the middle and lower class familys.
Click to expand...


Bullshit


----------



## Dot Com

come on Raygun fluffers. Raygun  wrote the book on tripling the national debt & selling arms to terrists. My question is: who planted the fake narrative  about how he was w/o fault (to put it mildly)  I wouldn't expect for Frank to be a lemming but thats what he appears to be in this case 

You people (conservatives) are going to have to go back further in time to find a repub President who has accomplishments (besides bankrupting another nation [USSR] a nanosecond before we bankrupted ourselves).


----------



## Jroc

Dot Com said:


> come on Raygun fluffers. Raygun  wrote the book on tripling the national debt & selling arms to terrists. My question is: who planted the fake narrative  about how he was w/o fault (to put it mildly)  I wouldn't expect for Frank to be a lemming but thats what he appears to be in this case



Yeah maybe Reagan should have made deals with the Soviet empire to keep 10s of millions under the thumb of the eastern block. You're an idiot, Trillions of dollars in *New *wealth was created as a result of Reagan's policies, as a result people moved up the income ladder. Future presidents benefited from the peace dividend after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan cut government and could have cut a lot more if it where not for the libs in both parties


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been tragically misinformed, lad.
> 
> Your country needs you to _EDUCATE YOURSELF.!_
> 
> Here's a good place to START learning some REAL ECONOMIC HISTORY about *Reagan the DEFICIT SPENDING BIG GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
> *
> 
> The DEFORMATION OF CAPITALISM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When dissecting Washington politics and Wall Street deal-making Stockman naturally draws on his experience as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan and his many years as an investment banker and private equity investor, and in so doing he reflects on much of his own professional life with commendable candor.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


what else would you expect from someone with this user name meathead.thats pretty much what his brain is same as his feloow troll lover crusader frank.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal media wrote many lies on Reagan those who had to live through Reagan era know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those who lived through the reagan era remember how he betrayed the middle and lower class familys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People actually moved up under Reagan unlike this pathetic poor excuse for a president we have now
Click to expand...


lies as always from the paid zionist shill.you zionist shills are so stupid you dont even try to hide it that you are a zionist shill that has penetrated this site going out of your way to advertise your support the atrocities of israel.

your as sloppy as the CIA is with their lies they tell the american people in their controlled media.

the truth about reagan.

FOR THE LEFT: Reagan's Betrayal of the Middle Class Comes to Full Fruition

How the GOP betrayed the White American Middle Class? | YAHOO THOM


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> come on Raygun fluffers. Raygun  wrote the book on tripling the national debt & selling arms to terrists. My question is: who planted the fake narrative  about how he was w/o fault (to put it mildly)  I wouldn't expect for Frank to be a lemming but thats what he appears to be in this case
> 
> You people (conservatives) are going to have to go back further in time to find a repub President who has accomplishments (besides bankrupting another nation [USSR] a nanosecond before we bankrupted ourselves).



those are pesky facts they are obviously ignorant about,.they were obviously not around back then during the reagan years.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> *REAGANS ECONOMIC SUCCESS*
> Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
> 20 million new jobs were created.
> Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
> The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
> Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
> Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
> The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
> The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
> The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
> During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
> In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
> The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
> (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
> The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
> The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
Click to expand...


more lies from the zionist shill.


----------



## Dot Com

Why do conservatives pick the Gipper, of all Repub President's in the 20th century to choose from, to idolize


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> Why do conservatives pick the Gipper, of all Repub President's in the 20th century to choose from, to idolize



the most devoted loony of them all is troll frank here.he runs off everytime you post a link and never addresses it knowing he is cornered.he must be a distant cousin of one of ronnies sons.thats the ONLY thing that makes any sense about his obsession of not looking at the facts about reagans corruption.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REAGANS ECONOMIC SUCCESS*
> Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
> 20 million new jobs were created.
> Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
> The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
> Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
> Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
> The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
> The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
> The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
> During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
> In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
> The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
> (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
> The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
> The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more lies from the zionist shill.
Click to expand...


Really? That's your answer?

Then you wonder why I ignore this thread


----------



## Meathead

Dot Com said:


> Why do conservatives pick the Gipper, of all Repub President's in the 20th century to choose from, to idolize


Because he was the most effective and successful. It really is that simple.


----------



## Camp

Oct. 23, 1983   Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## LA RAM FAN

i see the two lover trolls meathead brain and cousin of reagan, frank kid,are here back to troll again so soon.

btw hypocrite troll frank,you really expose your hypocrisy and what a sad excuse of a human being you are "which again is no surprise since you are related to raygun somehow," you expose it acknowledging the truth that Bush sr was involved in the JFK assassination,but like the hypocrite troll you are.you ignore facts that your bastard idol,did the same thing that the other bastard future president Ford did,like ford,raygun also participated in the coverup of the JFK assassination,and like Ford,was also rewarded the office of the presidency for his particpation in the coverup.

As governor of california,Raygun blocked many subpeonas of Jim Garriosn to subpeona many key high officials in high power in government during his investigation which AGAIN,is WHY he was rewarded the office of the presidency like Ford because like Ford,he also particpated in the coverup.


I already knew about this years before i saw this video but this video down here below,talks about it as well.hypocrite Frank of course will dismiss it and not watch it.

at about the 30 minute mark it talks about that.


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> i see the two lover trolls meathead brain and cousin of reagan, frank kid,are here back to troll again so soon.


Butt hurt, eh? Really, it's been 25 years ffs!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> i see the two lover trolls meathead brain and cousin of reagan, frank kid,are here back to troll again so soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Butt hurt, eh? Really, it's been 25 years ffs!
Click to expand...


hey meatbrain,Im taking you off ignore for a minute to ask you a simple question.as we both know,you will evade it and not answer it of course since they are good points.lol.

1.you said sometime back i cant be taken seriously because of my user name.well guess what?your lover troll frank no longer accepts the lies of the 9/11 coverup commission anymore either and doesnt believe the official version as well.not only that,but he also doesnt ignore facts how Bush sr was involved in the JFK assassination also.I can find a few references where he has said that before.

Isnt that being a hypocrite siding with  a guy whom according to you,has the same warped logic about the kennedy assassination and 9/11 as I do? 

seems to me,since he has those same agreements with me on 9/11 and Bushwackers involvement in the jfk case,you would want to distance yourself from him and tell him it disgusts you to have him on your side on this? thats the biggest hypocrisy I can possibly imiagine.

Frank cant have it both ways like the hypocrite wants to.Either reagan and bush are both corrupt,or they both are not.again,cant have it both ways the way he wants to.that again is being a hypocrite.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

speaking of this,for a long time I saw people callingfrank names for speaking the truth talking about Obama not being a us citizen,which is one more thing you dont agree with him on im sure?

He used to make lots of threads about that and I thought it was unfair the way he was attacked and called names for that for speaking a truth that is uncomfortable for a lot of americans to face which is why they attacked him.

Now I can understand WHY they called him names back then and laughed at him so much all the time  because of how he blatantly ignores facts that prove him wrong and wont even address them changing the subject when cornered.

its people like Frank that give people fighting for the truth about this fraud Obama and his illegal citizenship a bad name and give them a  bad reputation thanks to the hypocrisy they display when it comes to another presidents corruption exposed.

reminds me of that idiot troll Pale retard who used to post here.he really gave obama truthers a bad name.he always said alex jones was a nutcase for saying 9/11 was an inside job,but then when he made a video exposing Obama as the fraud he is,.he was on Jones bandwagon. such hypocrisy.

same with troll frank here.Jones will be the first to tell you how corrupt and evil Reagan was back then and idiot dumbfuck Frank here will say Jones is stupid and doesnt know what he is talking about.

Yet when Jones statrs talking about how corrupt Obama is and how he is not a us citizen,like that other hypocrite disgracful troll Pale retard,Frank will be the first here to toot the horn of Jones.fucking hypocrite. Franks kind is what gives the human race a bad name.


----------



## Camp

April 5, 1986 = Dec. 21, 1988  Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## Camp

C'mon all you Reagan lovers. I got more dates to post.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan didn't have Fox News or Rush either. He did it all by talking directly to the people.

He never had a Republican Congress either, he did it by negotiating with a Democrat Congress


----------



## Jroc

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more lies from the zionist shill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? That's your answer?
> 
> Then you wonder why I ignore this thread
Click to expand...


Can you really have a serious conversation with this nut job conspiracy loon?


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan didn't have Fox News or Rush either. *He did it all *by talking directly to the people.
> 
> He never had a Republican Congress either, he did it by negotiating with a Democrat Congress



"did it all"?  You mean triple the nat'l debt, raise taxes, arm death squads in central america, and ship arms to Iran?


----------



## Camp

April 18, 1983  Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## Dot Com

Reagan would be primaried-out by today's republican party. He, egad!, worked w/ the opposing party. Today's Repub party would ban him from their convention. FACT!


----------



## Jroc

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan didn't have Fox News or Rush either. *He did it all *by talking directly to the people.
> 
> He never had a Republican Congress either, he did it by negotiating with a Democrat Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "did it all"?  You mean triple the nat'l debt, raise taxes, arm death squads in central america, and ship arms to Iran?
Click to expand...


Are you dense or what? Reagan spent a lot on Defense the results were the defeat of the Soviet Empire.. Raise taxes overall Reagan drastically reduced taxes, and simplified the tax code. He did agree to some tax increases after that, which here to be 3 to one spending cuts, congress however never came through with those cuts of course. There were death squad on both sides you idiot that's what war is killing. unlike our current president, Reagan did what was in the best interest of this country.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> Reagan would be primaried-out by today's republican party. He, egad!, worked w/ the opposing party. Today's Repub party would ban him from their convention. FACT!



Unlike Obama, he never called the opposition party "the enemy"


----------



## Camp

June 14, 1985  Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## CrusaderFrank

September 27, 2013 Fuck Camp


----------



## jwoodie

Dot Com said:


> Reagan would be primaried-out by today's republican party. He, egad!, worked w/ the opposing party. Today's Repub party would ban him from their convention. FACT!



Anyone who labels his own opinion as "fact" is both arrogant and profoundly ignorant.  Nice combination.


----------



## thanatos144

Jroc said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says*
> 
> Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says
> Brian Faler, ©2013 Bloomberg News
> Published 9:37 pm, Tuesday, February 5, 2013
> 
> Read more: Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says - SFGate
> 
> -------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We know the right wing keeps saying The Sky is Falling and and The End is Near, but reality strikes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot it'll go down *slightly* then rise again after Obamacare is fully implemented as the CBO projects we have almost 70 to 80 trillion is unfunded liabilities we need to reform these entitlements or we're through as the United States of America
Click to expand...


which is precisely what they want.


----------



## thanatos144

Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.


----------



## PrometheusBound

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total Bullshit
> 
> Reagan got ERTA passed in Summer 1981
> 
> Oh, and with Reagan leading the way, the West pushed the USSR into oblivion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your post is whats bullshit.nope, internal strifes in the soviet union led to it,nothing to do with reagan,.deal with it. lets see,should I listen to franks rambings or what experts have said? I think I'll go by what the experts say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same "Experts" who called Reagan a War Monger and Ronny Raygun for challenging the USSR are now saying "well it would have collapsed anyway"
> 
> LOLz
Click to expand...


The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.


----------



## thanatos144

PrometheusBound said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> your post is whats bullshit.nope, internal strifes in the soviet union led to it,nothing to do with reagan,.deal with it. lets see,should I listen to franks rambings or what experts have said? I think I'll go by what the experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same "Experts" who called Reagan a War Monger and Ronny Raygun for challenging the USSR are now saying "well it would have collapsed anyway"
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.
Click to expand...


thats because he knew after meeting Gorbachev that the USSR was ripe for taking down.


----------



## Dot Com

STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water


----------



## Camp

Sept. 20, 1984  Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## Oldstyle

I find it amusing that so many progressives on this board are willing to invest this much effort in an attempt to rip Ronald Reagan's reputation to shreds twenty plus years after he left office.

You could see this coming a mile off though...

The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama took over from W. with an economy also in shambles.  Each man had VASTLY different solutions to the problems that faced them.  Each man had a completely different way of dealing with opposition to their agendas.

In the early points of the Obama Administration, Barry's supporters repeatedly made the valid point that unemployment was up in the early stages of Reagan's first term and public approval of his approach to the economic crisis was low.  Give Obama the same amount of time and you'll see that HIS policies are going to create the same results as Reagan's.  Give Obama time and he'll grow the economy and cut unemployment just as Reagan did!

The problem that Obama supporters have is that Obama's economic "plan" was put into action over five years ago...we've spent an unprecedented amount of money on it...and the economy simply hasn't responded.  Growth is anemic and unemployment levels have remained high.  Let's face it, Kiddies...you don't invent a statistic like "jobs created or *saved*" if your economic policies are working.  You come up with that if they are NOT working.

At this point in Reagan's second term the country was experiencing strong economic growth and people felt good about the future because they believed that Reagan had a plan and that his plan actually worked.  

How many people out there HONESTLY believe that Barack Obama has a plan to fix the economy any more?  How many of you even know who's running the show for Barry now that Larry Summers, Christina Romer and Austin Goolsby have all departed?  Who's Barry's chief economist now?  What is their economic plan going forward?  Does anyone know?  Does one exist at all?

I ask those questions because what I think is happening with strings like this, is that the left have given up even trying to defend the economic policies of this Administration because they haven't worked so far and nothing indicates that will change any time soon.  So what is left?  If you can't talk about the "successes" of your guy then the only thing left is to talk about the "failures" of the other side's guy.  That's why there are so many Reagan attack strings being started by Obama supporters.


----------



## gipper

Oldstyle said:


> I find it amusing that so many progressives on this board are willing to invest this much effort in an attempt to rip Ronald Reagan's reputation to shreds twenty plus years after he left office.
> 
> You could see this coming a mile off though...
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama took over from W. with an economy also in shambles.  Each man had VASTLY different solutions to the problems that faced them.  Each man had a completely different way of dealing with opposition to their agendas.
> 
> In the early points of the Obama Administration, Barry's supporters repeatedly made the valid point that unemployment was up in the early stages of Reagan's first term and public approval of his approach to the economic crisis was low.  Give Obama the same amount of time and you'll see that HIS policies are going to create the same results as Reagan's.  Give Obama time and he'll grow the economy and cut unemployment just as Reagan did!
> 
> The problem that Obama supporters have is that Obama's economic "plan" was put into action over five years ago...we've spent an unprecedented amount of money on it...and the economy simply hasn't responded.  Growth is anemic and unemployment levels have remained high.  Let's face it, Kiddies...you don't invent a statistic like "jobs created or *saved*" if your economic policies are working.  You come up with that if they are NOT working.
> 
> At this point in Reagan's second term the country was experiencing strong economic growth and people felt good about the future because they believed that Reagan had a plan and that his plan actually worked.
> 
> How many people out there HONESTLY believe that Barack Obama has a plan to fix the economy any more?  How many of you even know who's running the show for Barry now that Larry Summers, Christina Romer and Austin Goolsby have all departed?  Who's Barry's chief economist now?  What is their economic plan going forward?  Does anyone know?  Does one exist at all?
> 
> I ask those questions because what I think is happening with strings like this, is that the left have given up even trying to defend the economic policies of this Administration because they haven't worked so far and nothing indicates that will change any time soon.  So what is left?  If you can't talk about the "successes" of your guy then the only thing left is to talk about the "failures" of the other side's guy.  That's why there are so many Reagan attack strings being started by Obama supporters.



It is amusing what the Left has tried to do to Reagan.  

It amazes me that many on the Left believe BJ Bubba Clinton was a great president and regularly commend him for balancing the budget (not his intention, but thanks to an R Congress, gets kudos for it) and growing the economy.  Ignoring his lies, corruption, and treatment of women.  These same Leftists ignore Reagan's economic successes, while criticizing him for deficits (thanks in part to a D Congress).  They also refuse to criticize Big Ears for his abysmal economic record, explosion of debt, and terrible corruption.

The hypocrisy is beyond words!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water



some of the brainwashed sheep here are so much conditioned and brainwashed by the CIA controlled media "which he let run amok and get back to their old ways of running covert wars again after carter had dismanted their operations by firing evil monster Bush sr as director whom Ford appointed,then bringing in Stansfiled Turner who cleaned house getting rid of many CIA covert specialists and cleaning up their imiage by doing so,then reagan got in and of course fired Turner,and replaced him with William Casey who got their covert wars up and running again which is why we had those deaths squads that reagan supported." 

Yet somehow Reagan wasnt a puppet for the elite and was different than Bush somehow according to the troll reagan worshippers here liek frank and others.



jwoodie said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan would be primaried-out by today's republican party. He, egad!, worked w/ the opposing party. Today's Repub party would ban him from their convention. FACT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who labels his own opinion as "fact" is both arrogant and profoundly ignorant.  Nice combination.
Click to expand...


thats something all the Reagan worshippers like frank do,only give opinions instead of going by facts ignoring them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PrometheusBound said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> your post is whats bullshit.nope, internal strifes in the soviet union led to it,nothing to do with reagan,.deal with it. lets see,should I listen to franks rambings or what experts have said? I think I'll go by what the experts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same "Experts" who called Reagan a War Monger and Ronny Raygun for challenging the USSR are now saying "well it would have collapsed anyway"
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.
Click to expand...


which it did.I have said this a million times only to watch the fact get ignored by the reagan idiots that it did not matter who was president back then,that because of arms buildups over the years,thats what led to the collapse of the soviet union was internal strifes that went on which led to the end of the cold war.That even his long time pal Dick Nixon said it would have happened anyways no matter who was president  and gorbechev when asked if reagan had a hand in it replied saying-are you serious?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

thanatos144 said:


> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.



Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.

The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.

Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.

the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.

Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.

Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.

Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.

The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.


STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water 




The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama 

Uh actually those are lies that have been spread by the CIA media ever since Reagan left office.Carter was the one that took over an economy that was in shambles thanks to the prvious administration.By the time carter left,the ecomony was actually booming.Inflation was high but the ecomony was doing great under Carter.

Reagan got in and after his first term like you said,we were no better off that we were under Carter.It was Carters appointee Paul volker who turned the economy around in Reagans second term.Thanks to carter and his appointee,the economy turned around.Reagn just took the credit for it all.


----------



## thanatos144

9/11 inside job said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
Click to expand...


Then maybe you need to find somebody who did live through it, child


----------



## LA RAM FAN

thanatos144 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you need to find somebody who did live through it, child
Click to expand...


you might want to take your own advise child.


----------



## Camp

Dec. 3, 1984  Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> more lies from the zionist shill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's your answer?
> 
> Then you wonder why I ignore this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you really have a serious conversation with this nut job conspiracy loon?
Click to expand...


whatever you say zionist paid shill troll.

Kinda like your lover fellow troll frank is who agrees with me that 9/11 was an inside job and Bush sr was involved in the JFK assassination yet you side with this relative idiot of Reagans  about this issue.

as i told meathead brain,seems to me you would want to distance yourself away from that idiot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

This isn't surprising, the Left is a pathological lie; they lie about the economic greatness of FDR (7 straight years of 20% Average unemployment), they lie about McCarthy starting a Red Scare (more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR) and of course, they must lie about Reagan, who freed hundreds of millions of people from the crushing dehumanizing oppression that Liberals can't wait to bring here to the USA.

I don't answer the posts directly, because, what's the fucking difference? The Left is a hive-minded cult and they HATE Reagan simply because he called the USSR an Evil empire, make his goal to consign their Empire to the ash heap of history, and Sweet Fucking Jesus, did EXACTLY that.

The Hungarians tried to free themselves in 1956 and couldn't.

Throughout the years no US President directly challenged Soviet hegemony until Reagan. Sure, Reagan continued Carter's military build-up, but he pointed it directly at the Fulda Gap telling the USSR, "Try it fucker and we'll leave a mile long trail of burned out T72's"

Further, Reagan threatened to install Minuteman and Pershing missiles in Europe.

Most of all, Reagan refused to back down. He knew he was right, he knew his cause was just, he knew the USSR would not maintain itself as it was.

Grown men in Eastern Europe, who experienced first hand the disgusting conditions of the Progressive Workers Paradise will never forget Reagan and admire him for freeing them.

I talk with Russian emigres and they will tell you to your face that the American Left are the stupidest fucking people on the planet for admiring a system with a 100% Fail.

And I tend to agree with them


----------



## CrusaderFrank

thanatos144 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you need to find somebody who did live through it, child
Click to expand...


Willing to bet that 9/11 was in diapers when Reagan was President


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Really? That's your answer?

Then you wonder why I ignore this thread 

thanks for showing as always,you have reading comprehension problems dumbfuck.

as always you evaded my facts that counted his lies and B.s when i addressed it here in post #  on this page.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> 
> STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama
> 
> Uh actually those are lies that have been spread by the CIA media ever since Reagan left office.Carter was the one that took over an economy that was in shambles thanks to the prvious administration.By the time carter left,the ecomony was actually booming.Inflation was high but the ecomony was doing great under Carter.
> 
> Reagan got in and after his first term like you said,we were no better off that we were under Carter.It was Carters appointee Paul volker who turned the economy around in Reagans second term.Thanks to carter and his appointee,the economy turned around.Reagn just took the credit for it all.
Click to expand...


"Unpopular Reagan 1984 Map"  

Count 'em he won 56 of our 57 states


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Really? That's your answer?
> 
> Then you wonder why I ignore this thread
> 
> thanks for showing as always,you have reading comprehension problems dumbfuck.
> 
> as always you evaded my facts that counted his lies and B.s when i addressed it here in post #  on this page.



OK, maybe you were in 2nd grade and out of diapers. There's not a chance in hell you were an adult during the Reagan presidency


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Really? That's your answer?

Then you wonder why I ignore this thread 
__________________
I shot down his lies with this post # number 178 which you ignored like you always do in your debates troll.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-12.html


----------



## bendog

Dante, I agree it's true that pseudo-conservatives misinterpret what Reagan was about, but I don't think Reagan actually changed.  As one of the initial threads pointed out, his greatest achievement may have been changing how we looked at ourselves.  The conventional wisdom was we did something bad in Vietnam.  LBJ lied us into it (hey were else did that happen) but the kids who served and died did so to protect the world from communism, and the public supported that.  He told us we were good people, and to be proud of that.

I don't think he really moderated his views so much as how events played out.  Reagan was morally horrified of the concept of mutually assured destruction.  Nixon viewed him a simpleton.  

Personally, I opposed Reagan's conventional military buildup, simply because in economic terms, I thought communism was doomed regardless.  But, perhaps Reagan was wise.  His military buildup nearly caused a nuclear exchange under Andropov, but it also forestalled any notion the soviets might of had to try and prop up their econ corpse with W. Germany's economy.  They couldn't be sure that NATO would fail to stop them w/o America having to launch a nuclear attack from our hemisphere.  That is, they might have bet we'd go Munich on Europe to avoid a general nuclear exchange, but Reagan dealt them a new hand that didn't allow that play.

Reagan wanted nukes out of the equation all along.  Once Gorbachav saw there was no way to continue the arms race with Star Wars that potentially could eliminate the soviets cheap bang for the buck missle technology, it was game over.  For Reagan's purposes it was enough if the Ruskies thought Star Wars just might work, even ten years down the road.  They didn't have the money to build their own.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> 
> STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama
> 
> Uh actually those are lies that have been spread by the CIA media ever since Reagan left office.Carter was the one that took over an economy that was in shambles thanks to the prvious administration.By the time carter left,the ecomony was actually booming.Inflation was high but the ecomony was doing great under Carter.
> 
> Reagan got in and after his first term like you said,we were no better off that we were under Carter.It was Carters appointee Paul volker who turned the economy around in Reagans second term.Thanks to carter and his appointee,the economy turned around.Reagn just took the credit for it all.
Click to expand...


Dude, your knowledge of what was taking place during the Nixon-Carter-Reagan Administrations is pathetic.  Jimmy Carter shot himself in the foot with the economy when he instituted price controls on gas and oil which was an unmitigated disaster.  Much of the Reagan turn around can be directly traced to his lifting of those price controls shortly after taking office.

CIA controlled media?  Really?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe you need to find somebody who did live through it, child
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Willing to bet that 9/11 was in diapers when Reagan was President
Click to expand...


I remember that era like it was yesterday.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's your answer?
> 
> Then you wonder why I ignore this thread
> 
> thanks for showing as always,you have reading comprehension problems dumbfuck.
> 
> as always you evaded my facts that counted his lies and B.s when i addressed it here in post #  on this page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, maybe you were in 2nd grade and out of diapers. There's not a chance in hell you were an adult during the Reagan presidency
Click to expand...


No reagans devoted distant cousin troll,YOU were the one in diapers fuckface.No theres not a chance in hell YOU were an adult back then troll hyocrite.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> 
> STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama
> 
> Uh actually those are lies that have been spread by the CIA media ever since Reagan left office.Carter was the one that took over an economy that was in shambles thanks to the prvious administration.By the time carter left,the ecomony was actually booming.Inflation was high but the ecomony was doing great under Carter.
> 
> Reagan got in and after his first term like you said,we were no better off that we were under Carter.It was Carters appointee Paul volker who turned the economy around in Reagans second term.Thanks to carter and his appointee,the economy turned around.Reagn just took the credit for it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, your knowledge of what was taking place during the Nixon-Carter-Reagan Administrations is pathetic.  Jimmy Carter shot himself in the foot with the economy when he instituted price controls on gas and oil which was an unmitigated disaster.  Much of the Reagan turn around can be directly traced to his lifting of those price controls shortly after taking office.
> 
> CIA controlled media?  Really?
Click to expand...


No dude,,your knowledge of what took place during the Reagan years is what is pathetic. the way you keep playing dodgeball with everybodys posts that comes on here and derails your ramblings.

thanks for demonstrationg your ignorance  in what really goes on in the country as well and how corrupt the CIA is. Its common knowledge the CIA after world war two brought over nazi criminals to work for them.a fact your obviously ignorant of.

Oh and congress did an investigation into the CIA'S activities in the 70's -back then congress wasnt anywhere near as corrupt as it is now,and they discovered through the freedom of information act, documents that the CIA has plants everywhere in mainstream media outlets and they are stationed everywhere in federal workplaces as well.

It was all over in rolling stone magazine back then with the article done by none other than Carl Bernstein whom I guess your going to say is a tin foil hatter?.

Looks like the truth hurts.

It was discovered that Walter Kronkite was a plant,oh Hannity and Colmes and Bill O'reily are plants as well.Peter Jennings,Dan Rather,Tom Brokaw,all plants charlie.

That was why Dan Rather skyrocketed to stardom all of a sudden to the major networks was his partipation in the coverup of the assassination of JFK our last real president.

He was the ONLY media person who was able to view the zapruder film back then in the days that followed that whole week and like the idiot he was,got careless in his lies telling the american people that Kennedys head went FORWARD from the gunshot.

 He knew the lie to spread was that oswald did it so in his desperate attempts to spread the lie,he said he saw his head go forward.thats why many cartoon features have been written about him snoozing while viewing the film since it clearly shows his head going backward and to the left.

thats why a lot of americans that are not brainwashed by the idiot box in the living room you worship,read alternative news sources like american free press,media bypass,the drudge report,ect ect.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

so much for the lies spread by the reagan trolls here that he made the economy flourish.

these links of course will go ignored by the reagan trolls.

Consortiumnews.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-reagan-ruins_b_816820.html

oh and you reagan trolls might try and read these two books here which we all know you wont.especially reagans cousin retard frank and that zionist paid shill thats penetrated this site.

https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1868/t/12126/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=1037


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Really? That's your answer?
> 
> Then you wonder why I ignore this thread
> 
> thanks for showing as always,you have reading comprehension problems dumbfuck.
> 
> as always you evaded my facts that counted his lies and B.s when i addressed it here in post #  on this page.



just so you cant come back and say i did not address it -which you would have a right to say if I had not cleared up this post,I made it thinking I had posted the link but obviously i had not," I addressed it and shot down the zionist shills lies right here on post # 178 on page 12 which like the troll you are,blatantly ignored like you do EVERY post of people like myself who shoot down your lies about your idiot bastard idio.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-12.html


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> 
> STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama
> 
> Uh actually those are lies that have been spread by the CIA media ever since Reagan left office.Carter was the one that took over an economy that was in shambles thanks to the prvious administration.By the time carter left,the ecomony was actually booming.Inflation was high but the ecomony was doing great under Carter.
> 
> Reagan got in and after his first term like you said,we were no better off that we were under Carter.It was Carters appointee Paul volker who turned the economy around in Reagans second term.Thanks to carter and his appointee,the economy turned around.Reagn just took the credit for it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Unpopular Reagan 1984 Map"
> 
> Count 'em he won 56 of our 57 states
Click to expand...


showing the reading comprehension problems you have as always I see a normal trait with reagan trolls.

I made it perfectly clear Reagan was unpopular DURING his time while in office,not before idiot. oh and elections are rigged-have been for DECADES,even my hero Jfk I can acknowledge unlike you can with reagan,I can even admit he stole the election from Nixon.

you however will never acknowledge elections have been rigged as far back as Hoovers days at least which included reagan stealing it from carter.

oh and when dante pointed those facts out to you,you even acknowleded it back then saying-"it was a good thing reagan did not listen to the people,"shall I find that quote of yours? I will be more than happy to do so if you wish.hee hee.

as always,you demostrate what a joke you are and your hypocrisy acknowleding back then to dante that he was unpopular with the people,and then when I mention that,you get desperate and try and say he was popular after saying he wasnt.what a total troll you are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> so much for the lies spread by the reagan trolls here that he made the economy flourish.
> 
> these links of course will go ignored by the reagan trolls.
> 
> Consortiumnews.com
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/the-reagan-ruins_b_816820.html
> 
> oh and you reagan trolls might try and read these two books here which we all know you wont.especially reagans cousin retard frank and that zionist paid shill thats penetrated this site.
> 
> https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1868/t/12126/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=1037



I know the progressive lies about Reagan back and forth.  

Reagan didn't revive the economy, someone else did that. 

Reagan didn't defeat the USSR they just coincidentally decided to tear down the Berlin Wall and free Eastern Europe

Oh Reagan raised taxes

Reagan never cut the budget

 Fucking boring


----------



## Camp

March 16, 1984  Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## Dot Com

gipper said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that so many progressives on this board are willing to invest this much effort in an attempt to rip Ronald Reagan's reputation to shreds twenty plus years after he left office.
> 
> You could see this coming a mile off though...
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama took over from W. with an economy also in shambles.  Each man had VASTLY different solutions to the problems that faced them.  Each man had a completely different way of dealing with opposition to their agendas.
> 
> In the early points of the Obama Administration, Barry's supporters repeatedly made the valid point that unemployment was up in the early stages of Reagan's first term and public approval of his approach to the economic crisis was low.  Give Obama the same amount of time and you'll see that HIS policies are going to create the same results as Reagan's.  Give Obama time and he'll grow the economy and cut unemployment just as Reagan did!
> 
> The problem that Obama supporters have is that Obama's economic "plan" was put into action over five years ago...we've spent an unprecedented amount of money on it...and the economy simply hasn't responded.  Growth is anemic and unemployment levels have remained high.  Let's face it, Kiddies...you don't invent a statistic like "jobs created or *saved*" if your economic policies are working.  You come up with that if they are NOT working.
> 
> At this point in Reagan's second term the country was experiencing strong economic growth and people felt good about the future because they believed that Reagan had a plan and that his plan actually worked.
> 
> How many people out there HONESTLY believe that Barack Obama has a plan to fix the economy any more?  How many of you even know who's running the show for Barry now that Larry Summers, Christina Romer and Austin Goolsby have all departed?  Who's Barry's chief economist now?  What is their economic plan going forward?  Does anyone know?  Does one exist at all?
> 
> I ask those questions because what I think is happening with strings like this, is that the left have given up even trying to defend the economic policies of this Administration because they haven't worked so far and nothing indicates that will change any time soon.  So what is left?  If you can't talk about the "successes" of your guy then the only thing left is to talk about the "failures" of the other side's guy.  That's why there are so many Reagan attack strings being started by Obama supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing what the Left has tried to do to Reagan.
> 
> It amazes me that many on the Left believe BJ Bubba Clinton was a great president and regularly commend him for balancing the budget (not his intention, but thanks to an R Congress, gets kudos for it) and growing the economy.  Ignoring his lies, corruption, and treatment of women.  These same Leftists ignore Reagan's economic successes, while criticizing him for deficits (thanks in part to a D Congress).  They also refuse to criticize Big Ears for his abysmal economic record, explosion of debt, and terrible corruption.
> 
> The hypocrisy is beyond words!
Click to expand...


do you wear socks? Thats a rhetorical question.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan freed people from the nightmare political economy that the American left wants to implement here; how can you debate that, what do you say to people so detached from reality


----------



## Dot Com

The last decent Repub Prez I can think of is TR.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan freed people from the nightmare political economy that the American left wants to implement here; how can you debate that, what do you say to people so detached from reality



The 70's weren't a nightmare. Reagan didn't free people from a nightmare, he created one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed people from the nightmare political economy that the American left wants to implement here; how can you debate that, what do you say to people so detached from reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 70's weren't a nightmare. Reagan didn't free people from a nightmare, he created one.
Click to expand...


That's how absurd the naive American left is, you think people were better off as slaves under Communism


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan freed people from the nightmare political economy that the American left wants to implement here; how can you debate that, what do you say to people so detached from reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 70's weren't a nightmare. Reagan didn't free people from a nightmare, he created one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how absurd the naive American left is, you think people were better off as slaves under Communism
Click to expand...


I'm not the American left. America wasn't communist in the 70's. Boxes with our dead neighbors and countrymen were still coming home from fighting communist you jack ass. You are insinuating that those who fought in Vietnam were fighting for communism against other communist. Where do you get this stuff that floats around in your head? How old are you? Were you around during the 70's or 80's?


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> 
> STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama
> 
> Uh actually those are lies that have been spread by the CIA media ever since Reagan left office.Carter was the one that took over an economy that was in shambles thanks to the prvious administration.By the time carter left,the ecomony was actually booming.Inflation was high but the ecomony was doing great under Carter.
> 
> Reagan got in and after his first term like you said,we were no better off that we were under Carter.It was Carters appointee Paul volker who turned the economy around in Reagans second term.Thanks to carter and his appointee,the economy turned around.Reagn just took the credit for it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Unpopular Reagan 1984 Map"
> 
> Count 'em he won 56 of our 57 states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> showing the reading comprehension problems you have as always I see a normal trait with reagan trolls.
> 
> I made it perfectly clear Reagan was unpopular DURING his time while in office,not before idiot. oh and elections are rigged-have been for DECADES,even my hero Jfk I can acknowledge unlike you can with reagan,I can even admit he stole the election from Nixon.
> 
> you however will never acknowledge elections have been rigged as far back as Hoovers days at least which included reagan stealing it from carter.
> 
> oh and when dante pointed those facts out to you,you even acknowleded it back then saying-"it was a good thing reagan did not listen to the people,"shall I find that quote of yours? I will be more than happy to do so if you wish.hee hee.
> 
> as always,you demostrate what a joke you are and your hypocrisy acknowleding back then to dante that he was unpopular with the people,and then when I mention that,you get desperate and try and say he was popular after saying he wasnt.what a total troll you are.
Click to expand...


Ah, Sparky?  That map is from the election leading to Reagan's 2nd term!  How do you correlate THAT with your claim that Reagan was unpopular DURING his time in office?  Reagan was incredibly popular DURING his time in office.  His landslide victory over Mondale illustrates that fact.  Now do yourself a favor and go do some RESEARCH on these things before you embarrass yourself further....


----------



## Jroc

9/11 inside job said:


> so much for the lies spread by the reagan trolls here that he made the economy flourish.
> 
> these links of course will go ignored by the reagan trolls.
> 
> Consortiumnews.com
> 
> Robert L. Borosage: The Reagan Ruins
> 
> oh and you reagan trolls might try and read these two books here which we all know you wont.especially reagans cousin retard frank and that zionist paid shill thats penetrated this site.
> 
> https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1868/t/12126/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=1037



Stick to the conspiracy room loon...Thats where all the nutjobs belong


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is despised by two types of people....Progressives who are butt hurt that he was so great and Young Conspiracy nutbag Paulbots who never grew up in the Reagan era. Paul despised Reagan and then like the scumbag he was tried to use him to make himself look less fruity. Reagan is everything Obama cant be. He was a adult who compromised ... Too bad the democrats cant be trusted to keep up their end of the compromise. He was strait with the american people about the enemy...Unlike democrats who worshiped the USSR ... Hell most still do.  He wasn't perfect but he has been the greatest president we have had since Lincoln . He was also the last real republican president we have had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only stupid ignorant trolls like you and Frank defend the corruption of reagan.
> 
> The people that lived through it actually remember how bad things really were back then.
> 
> Its only the young brainwashed nutbags that listen to that idiot box in the living room and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh who fueled it all right after he got out off office that believe all the lies made up that he did.
> 
> the ones that grew up during the Reagan era are the ones that remember how bad it was.you obviously did not despite your lies.
> 
> Your just as much of a fucking troll is that idiot retard frank is.The proof is in the pudding on that the way you worship the lies the CIA media has spun about him in the lamestream media all the years.
> 
> Dante proved it earlier posting facts that Reagans popularity throughout most of his two terms,that he was very unpopular with the american people.
> 
> Hate to break your heart idiot,but Jfk was easily the greatest president since Lincoln.Unlike your bastard murdering idol,he actually tried to get rid of the CIA like the patriot he was and paid the price for it.He was our last REAL president we had despite franks lies in his avatar.
> 
> The CIA is the reason WHY the world is in the mess it is today and Obama just like every president since that bastard reagan,has been following the gippers footsteps sending jobs overseas and betraying the middle class.
> 
> 
> STOP THE RW PREVARICATING!!!  The Gipper was a tax-raisin', terrist armin', death squad fundin', deficit spender. Accept it and choose another rw dear leader to idolize because the Gipper doesn't hold water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable.  Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles.  Obama
> 
> Uh actually those are lies that have been spread by the CIA media ever since Reagan left office.Carter was the one that took over an economy that was in shambles thanks to the prvious administration.By the time carter left,the ecomony was actually booming.Inflation was high but the ecomony was doing great under Carter.
> 
> Reagan got in and after his first term like you said,we were no better off that we were under Carter.It was Carters appointee Paul volker who turned the economy around in Reagans second term.Thanks to carter and his appointee,the economy turned around.Reagn just took the credit for it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Unpopular Reagan 1984 Map"
> 
> Count 'em he won 56 of our 57 states
Click to expand...


I voted for Reagan, twice, it was better than what the dems had to run for office.


----------



## Moonglow

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Unpopular Reagan 1984 Map"
> 
> Count 'em he won 56 of our 57 states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> showing the reading comprehension problems you have as always I see a normal trait with reagan trolls.
> 
> I made it perfectly clear Reagan was unpopular DURING his time while in office,not before idiot. oh and elections are rigged-have been for DECADES,even my hero Jfk I can acknowledge unlike you can with reagan,I can even admit he stole the election from Nixon.
> 
> you however will never acknowledge elections have been rigged as far back as Hoovers days at least which included reagan stealing it from carter.
> 
> oh and when dante pointed those facts out to you,you even acknowleded it back then saying-"it was a good thing reagan did not listen to the people,"shall I find that quote of yours? I will be more than happy to do so if you wish.hee hee.
> 
> as always,you demostrate what a joke you are and your hypocrisy acknowleding back then to dante that he was unpopular with the people,and then when I mention that,you get desperate and try and say he was popular after saying he wasnt.what a total troll you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Sparky?  That map is from the election leading to Reagan's 2nd term!  How do you correlate THAT with your claim that Reagan was unpopular DURING his time in office?  Reagan was incredibly popular DURING his time in office.  His landslide victory over Mondale illustrates that fact.  Now do yourself a favor and go do some RESEARCH on these things before you embarrass yourself further....
Click to expand...


Mondale made an ad slogan the phrase of the decade, _Where's the beef!?_


----------



## kiwina

For a liberal to accuse a conservative of revising history is just plan ludicrous I not only remember Reagan but also Nixon. As I look back at it today things were not as bad as some people wanted it to be. Some of the things that we thought were so terrible then ended up being the very thing that ended the very thing that brought the cold war to an end. As I look back at my liberal friends I see that many showed signs of co-dependency. Let&#8217;s start with the in &#8220;God we trust&#8221; starting in the &#8216;50s then why is it that the 1943 edition of the Blue Jacket Manual has all three verses of the National Anthem the last three lines of the last verse reads &#8220;And this be our motto: in &#8216;God we trust &#8216; and the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave o&#8217;er the land of the free and the  home of the brave&#8221;. The lies that are coming out of the left are astounding. In the &#8216;30s Disney mad a cartoon on Chicken Little. It is on U tube watch it!


----------



## Camp

Feb. 17, 1988 Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> March 16, 1984  Fuck Ronald Reagan



didn't know you hated old people so much



> Proclamation 5161 -- National Employ the Older Worker Week, 1984
> 
> March 16, 1984
> By the President of the United States
> 
> of America
> 
> A Proclamation
> 
> Older workers today represent a national resource of incomparable knowledge, judgment, and experience. In the coming decades, it is likely that older workers will constitute an increasing percentage of our population. Therefore, it is vital to the future prosperity of this Nation that these workers be encouraged to continue to make their considerable contributions by remaining in the work force or by serving their communities in voluntary roles.
> 
> Many employers have already recognized the potential contributions of older workers and have initiated hiring, retraining, second career, and job retention programs. In addition to these significant private initiatives, the Federal government has been active in promoting opportunities for older workers through a variety of efforts, including the recently implemented Job Training Partnership Act. These various private and public sector efforts have successfully demonstrated that, if sufficient opportunities are available, older workers can continue to make useful and valuable contributions which enhance the quality of life for their communities and which develop a renewed sense of their accomplishment and self-worth.
> 
> The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 205, has called for the designation by the President of the second full week in March, 1984 as ``National Employ the Older Worker Week.'' Recognition of this special week presents an invaluable opportunity to focus public attention on the accomplishments of older workers.
> 
> Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate the week beginning March 11, 1984, as National Employ the Older Worker Week, and I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. I urge all Governors, Mayors, and other public officials, leaders in business and labor, voluntary organizations, and private citizens to give special consideration to older workers with a view toward expanding the opportunities available to them.
> 
> In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eighth.
> 
> Ronald Reagan
> 
> [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 12:03 p.m., March 16, 1984]


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> The last decent Repub Prez I can think of is TR.



LOL Of course you like the first progressive president LOL


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> Feb. 17, 1988 Fuck Ronald Reagan


Still stuck on stupid huh? Were was it proven again Reagan had knowledge of it ?


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 16, 1984  Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't know you hated old people so much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proclamation 5161 -- National Employ the Older Worker Week, 1984
> 
> March 16, 1984
> By the President of the United States
> 
> of America
> 
> A Proclamation
> 
> Older workers today represent a national resource of incomparable knowledge, judgment, and experience. In the coming decades, it is likely that older workers will constitute an increasing percentage of our population. Therefore, it is vital to the future prosperity of this Nation that these workers be encouraged to continue to make their considerable contributions by remaining in the work force or by serving their communities in voluntary roles.
> 
> Many employers have already recognized the potential contributions of older workers and have initiated hiring, retraining, second career, and job retention programs. In addition to these significant private initiatives, the Federal government has been active in promoting opportunities for older workers through a variety of efforts, including the recently implemented Job Training Partnership Act. These various private and public sector efforts have successfully demonstrated that, if sufficient opportunities are available, older workers can continue to make useful and valuable contributions which enhance the quality of life for their communities and which develop a renewed sense of their accomplishment and self-worth.
> 
> The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 205, has called for the designation by the President of the second full week in March, 1984 as ``National Employ the Older Worker Week.'' Recognition of this special week presents an invaluable opportunity to focus public attention on the accomplishments of older workers.
> 
> Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate the week beginning March 11, 1984, as National Employ the Older Worker Week, and I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. I urge all Governors, Mayors, and other public officials, leaders in business and labor, voluntary organizations, and private citizens to give special consideration to older workers with a view toward expanding the opportunities available to them.
> 
> In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eighth.
> 
> Ronald Reagan
> 
> [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 12:03 p.m., March 16, 1984]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Something else happened on that day.


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> March 16, 1984  Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't know you hated old people so much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proclamation 5161 -- National Employ the Older Worker Week, 1984
> 
> March 16, 1984
> By the President of the United States
> 
> of America
> 
> A Proclamation
> 
> Older workers today represent a national resource of incomparable knowledge, judgment, and experience. In the coming decades, it is likely that older workers will constitute an increasing percentage of our population. Therefore, it is vital to the future prosperity of this Nation that these workers be encouraged to continue to make their considerable contributions by remaining in the work force or by serving their communities in voluntary roles.
> 
> Many employers have already recognized the potential contributions of older workers and have initiated hiring, retraining, second career, and job retention programs. In addition to these significant private initiatives, the Federal government has been active in promoting opportunities for older workers through a variety of efforts, including the recently implemented Job Training Partnership Act. These various private and public sector efforts have successfully demonstrated that, if sufficient opportunities are available, older workers can continue to make useful and valuable contributions which enhance the quality of life for their communities and which develop a renewed sense of their accomplishment and self-worth.
> 
> The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution 205, has called for the designation by the President of the second full week in March, 1984 as ``National Employ the Older Worker Week.'' Recognition of this special week presents an invaluable opportunity to focus public attention on the accomplishments of older workers.
> 
> Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby designate the week beginning March 11, 1984, as National Employ the Older Worker Week, and I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. I urge all Governors, Mayors, and other public officials, leaders in business and labor, voluntary organizations, and private citizens to give special consideration to older workers with a view toward expanding the opportunities available to them.
> 
> In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eighth.
> 
> Ronald Reagan
> 
> [Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 12:03 p.m., March 16, 1984]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something else happened on that day.
Click to expand...

Yea he nominated a person for a science appointment. 



> Nomination of John P. McTague To Be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
> 
> March 16, 1984
> 
> The President today announced his intention to nominate John P. McTague to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. He would succeed Ronald B. Frankum.
> 
> Since 1982 he has been serving as chairman of the National Synchrotron Light Source Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He is also adjunct professor of chemistry at Columbia University. Previously he was a professor of chemistry and member of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA. In 1964 - 1970 he served as a member of the technical staff at the North American Rockwell Science Center.
> 
> He is the author of numerous articles on physics and chemistry. He is a member of the American Chemical Society and a fellow of the American Physical Society, and has served as associate editor of the Journal of Chemical Physics. He received the A.P. Sloan, John Simon Guggenheim, and NATO Senior Fellowships.
> 
> He graduated from Georgetown University (B.S., 1960) and Brown University (Ph.D., 1975). He is married, has four children, and resides in Santa Monica, CA. He was born November 28, 1938, in Jersey City, NJ.


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feb. 17, 1988 Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Still stuck on stupid huh? Were was it proven again Reagan had knowledge of it ?
Click to expand...


The green light had been turned on. This kind of thing had become routine by Feb. 17, 1988.


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feb. 17, 1988 Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Still stuck on stupid huh? Were was it proven again Reagan had knowledge of it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The green light had been turned on. This kind of thing had become routine by Feb. 17, 1988.
Click to expand...


And I bet you still believe in unicorns and that Obama is a good president LOL


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> didn't know you hated old people so much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something else happened on that day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea he nominated a person for a science appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nomination of John P. McTague To Be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
> 
> March 16, 1984
> 
> The President today announced his intention to nominate John P. McTague to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. He would succeed Ronald B. Frankum.
> 
> Since 1982 he has been serving as chairman of the National Synchrotron Light Source Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He is also adjunct professor of chemistry at Columbia University. Previously he was a professor of chemistry and member of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA. In 1964 - 1970 he served as a member of the technical staff at the North American Rockwell Science Center.
> 
> He is the author of numerous articles on physics and chemistry. He is a member of the American Chemical Society and a fellow of the American Physical Society, and has served as associate editor of the Journal of Chemical Physics. He received the A.P. Sloan, John Simon Guggenheim, and NATO Senior Fellowships.
> 
> He graduated from Georgetown University (B.S., 1960) and Brown University (Ph.D., 1975). He is married, has four children, and resides in Santa Monica, CA. He was born November 28, 1938, in Jersey City, NJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nope, keep digging.


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something else happened on that day.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea he nominated a person for a science appointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nomination of John P. McTague To Be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
> 
> March 16, 1984
> 
> The President today announced his intention to nominate John P. McTague to be an Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. He would succeed Ronald B. Frankum.
> 
> Since 1982 he has been serving as chairman of the National Synchrotron Light Source Department at Brookhaven National Laboratory. He is also adjunct professor of chemistry at Columbia University. Previously he was a professor of chemistry and member of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA. In 1964 - 1970 he served as a member of the technical staff at the North American Rockwell Science Center.
> 
> He is the author of numerous articles on physics and chemistry. He is a member of the American Chemical Society and a fellow of the American Physical Society, and has served as associate editor of the Journal of Chemical Physics. He received the A.P. Sloan, John Simon Guggenheim, and NATO Senior Fellowships.
> 
> He graduated from Georgetown University (B.S., 1960) and Brown University (Ph.D., 1975). He is married, has four children, and resides in Santa Monica, CA. He was born November 28, 1938, in Jersey City, NJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
Click to expand...

I dont really like conspiracy theories created by panty wastes so why dont you just tell us this horrible thing so I laugh and ridicule you


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Nope, keep digging.


I dont really like conspiracy theories created by panty wastes so why dont you just tell us this horrible thing so I laugh and ridicule you[/QUOTE]

Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> Nope, keep digging.





thanatos144 said:


> I dont really like conspiracy theories created by panty wastes so why dont you just tell us this horrible thing so I laugh and ridicule you





Camp said:


> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983



Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont really like conspiracy theories created by panty wastes so why dont you just tell us this horrible thing so I laugh and ridicule you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
Click to expand...


No, I'm not done posting. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it means nothing. I'm guessing there are others with the ability to figure out what I am doing. Sorry you don't recognize the dates.


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not done posting. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it means nothing. I'm guessing there are others with the ability to figure out what I am doing. Sorry you don't recognize the dates.
Click to expand...


You should check if you have dain Bramage


----------



## Jroc

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not done posting. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it means nothing. I'm guessing there are others with the ability to figure out what I am doing. Sorry you don't recognize the dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should check if you have dain Bramage
Click to expand...


Psychological issues maybe


----------



## gipper

Every POTUS makes mistakes...some more than others.  Sadly, now that we have a huge, unlimited, and omnipresent federal government, those mistakes cause greater and greater harm to the people.  

If we had a limited small central government, where the POTUS's power is extremely limited (for that matter, all branches of government should be extremely limited) as was envisioned by the Founders, we would be in much better shape.  Sadly, we will never experience a small central government again and this could lead to America's demise.

How the Founders could believe that the Constitution, just a piece of paper that has become a dead letter, would limit the actions of power hungry dishonest men, is hard to accept.


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont really like conspiracy theories created by panty wastes so why dont you just tell us this horrible thing so I laugh and ridicule you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
Click to expand...


Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist. 
Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


You'd think Obama would have learned from that, right?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd think Obama would have learned from that, right?
Click to expand...


This is not about Obama. It's about Ronald Reagan. Obama nor any other President in American history has  ever shown the disrespect, disregard or distrust of The United States Marine Corps to send them into a combat zone with orders to keep their weapons unloaded so as not to cause an accidental incident that would anger an enemy or in this case, a terrorist organization, specificly Hezbolla. His stupid fear of pissing off the enemy and stupid order to send those guys into that situation without the chance to defend themselves is one of the things I remember about that POS. Fuck Ronald Reagan.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think Obama would have learned from that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not about Obama. It's about Ronald Reagan. Obama nor any other President in American history has  ever shown the disrespect, disregard or distrust of The United States Marine Corps to send them into a combat zone with orders to keep their weapons unloaded so as not to cause an accidental incident that would anger an enemy or in this case, a terrorist organization, specificly Hezbolla. His stupid fear of pissing off the enemy and stupid order to send those guys into that situation without the chance to defend themselves is one of the things I remember about that POS. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Everytime Retard Frank is cornered with facts he cant refute,he evades them bringing up how Obama is ruining the country.

Fuck Reagan is right.

Frank is the biggest hypocrite troll at USMB.He does the same thing Pale Retard used to do when he was here.Ignore the atrocities that republican presidents commit calling alex jones a loony for saying they are corrupt,yet Frank praises Jones NOW all of a sudden because he is shitting on obama ,a subject near and dear to him,after Jones made the documentary The Obama Deception.

Jones tells the truth in that video that JFK was the last real president we had,Frank thinks he is lonny for saying that,yet according to his warped brain,Jones is all of a sudden credible because he is shitting on Obama now.

cant have it both ways you want it retard frank.Jones is either right about BOTH Reagan AND Obama,or wrong about both.cant have it both ways you want it hypocrite.


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same "Experts" who called Reagan a War Monger and Ronny Raygun for challenging the USSR are now saying "well it would have collapsed anyway"
> 
> LOLz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats because he knew after meeting Gorbachev that the USSR was ripe for taking down.
Click to expand...


While our "intelligence" agencies are made up of preppie frat rats and pseudo-intellectual bookworms, the KGB knows what is going on.   If they were frightened by Star Wars, I trust their analysis more than the PC pacifists who judged it to be unworkable.  Using his acting skills, Reagan managed to frighten our three enemies into submission.  He made the Iranians think they'd be turned into glass if they didn't release the hostages; he made OPEC believe their oilfields would be seized if they didn't drastically reduce their price-gouging, and he made the Soviets abdicate.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PrometheusBound said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats because he knew after meeting Gorbachev that the USSR was ripe for taking down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While our "intelligence" agencies are made up of preppie frat rats and pseudo-intellectual bookworms, the KGB knows what is going on.   If they were frightened by Star Wars, I trust their analysis more than the PC pacifists who judged it to be unworkable.  Using his acting skills, Reagan managed to frighten our three enemies into submission.  He made the Iranians think they'd be turned into glass if they didn't release the hostages; he made OPEC believe their oilfields would be seized if they didn't drastically reduce their price-gouging, and he made the Soviets abdicate.
Click to expand...


trolling with lies as always do the reagan lovers.Raygun struck a deal with them  not  to release the hostages till after his election in exchange for weapons to be given to them to fight the so called evil communists.

the hostages were delayed troll so actor reagan could fool the american people into making him look like the genius he was instead of the traiterous scumbag bastard he was..just a bizarre coincidence according you reagan lovers warped brains.no conspiracy there at all.

Him being the good actor he was,he did just that.fooled everybody with his performances.No conspiracy there at all


----------



## PrometheusBound

9/11 inside job said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same "Experts" who called Reagan a War Monger and Ronny Raygun for challenging the USSR are now saying "well it would have collapsed anyway"
> 
> LOLz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which it did.I have said this a million times only to watch the fact get ignored by the reagan idiots that it did not matter who was president back then,that because of arms buildups over the years,thats what led to the collapse of the soviet union was internal strifes that went on which led to the end of the cold war.That even his long time pal Dick Nixon said it would have happened anyways no matter who was president  and gorbechev when asked if reagan had a hand in it replied saying-are you serious?
Click to expand...


If someone like Reagan had been President instead of that KC crook Truman, the Cold War never would have gotten off the ground.  Using our monopoly on nukes, he would have forced Russia out of Eastern Europe and made it too costly for them to create an empire.

  With all your refusal to trust incompetent and dishonest official sources, you can't come up with a rational alternative.  That is what the Conspiracy conspiracy is all about, as proven by how much money is spent on your websites.


----------



## Camp

PrometheusBound said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats because he knew after meeting Gorbachev that the USSR was ripe for taking down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While our "intelligence" agencies are made up of preppie frat rats and pseudo-intellectual bookworms, the KGB knows what is going on.   If they were frightened by Star Wars, I trust their analysis more than the PC pacifists who judged it to be unworkable.  Using his acting skills, Reagan managed to frighten our three enemies into submission.  He made the Iranians think they'd be turned into glass if they didn't release the hostages; he made OPEC believe their oilfields would be seized if they didn't drastically reduce their price-gouging, and he made the Soviets abdicate.
Click to expand...


Sept. 1, 1983 Fuck Ronald Reagan


Ya, the Soviet Union was just petrified of Reagan. They were so afraid of him that on Sept. 1, 1983 they sent out a MIG-15 to shoot down a commercial jet carrying 269 passengers and crew that had departed from Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America with a destination of South Korea.
The MIG-15 accomplished it's mission and all 269 souls were rendered dead.


----------



## PrometheusBound

I don't understand how people can blame Reagan for the collapse of the unions just because he locked out a government employees union holding a totally illegal strike.

In the working-class neighborhood where I grew up, we all would have lived in dire poverty if it hadn't been for the unions.  But our fathers had lost the courage of our grandfathers and tried to get us to conform to the Preppy Republic, pushing the childish indentured servitude of college education instead of living like a man at age 18 and building stronger unions.  If we had done that instead of the unnatural wimpiness of conformity to corporate bullies, blue-collar workers would have made as much as college graduates.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PrometheusBound said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet Union recovered from many crises in its 70-year history.  So the empire would have recovered from any other factor besides Reagan.  He went in for the kill, while others did nothing, expecting that the USSR would fall on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which it did.I have said this a million times only to watch the fact get ignored by the reagan idiots that it did not matter who was president back then,that because of arms buildups over the years,thats what led to the collapse of the soviet union was internal strifes that went on which led to the end of the cold war.That even his long time pal Dick Nixon said it would have happened anyways no matter who was president  and gorbechev when asked if reagan had a hand in it replied saying-are you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone like Reagan had been President instead of that KC crook Truman, the Cold War never would have gotten off the ground.  Using our monopoly on nukes, he would have forced Russia out of Eastern Europe and made it too costly for them to create an empire.
> 
> With all your refusal to trust incompetent and dishonest official sources, you can't come up with a rational alternative.  That is what the Conspiracy conspiracy is all about, as proven by how much money is spent on your websites.
Click to expand...


B.S from you as always.raygun just like that other evil bastard Truman was just a puppet for the establishment willing to serve the bankers and wall street and fuel government corruption. 

 Truman as much of a bastard as he was,at least had the deceny to apologize in his laters years to the american people saying he regretted creating the CIA which he created in 1947 creating it for the sole purpose of gathering information on other countries and having them report thier  findings directly to the president.That was what he created it intially for and its only purose was to do just that.

He never intended for it to become a policy creating firm for the united states which is what it has become now.He never created it with the intention of having them go overseas and assassinate other world leaders or start secret covert wars in other countrys murdering women and children.Oh and the CIA has even finally came out and admitted recently they were behind the assassination of the Iraninan leader in 1954.

Now all they need to do is admit they killed Jfk as well which by the way,is overwhelming,you just dont want to look at the evidence same as you dont want to look at the evidence of how corrupt raygun was.

your doing what all reagan lovers do,evade the facts and change the subject talking about other presidents when cornered just like reagans distant cousin frank just did.

thats a common trait you all have.

Truman as much of an evil bastard he was,at least had the decency to apologize to the american people for creating the CIA-the reason the world is in the mess that it is today.Them and the fed.

He came out and said that it was the worst mistake he ever made in office,that he had helped create a monster.which they are.they are an evil out of control organization that as i said before,brought nazi war criminals over from germany to work for them after world war two.its all documented in one of their documents congress got a hold of in the 70's when they were not near as corrupt like they are now.called OPERATION PAPERCLIP.

what did reagan do when he came into office? He let the CIA run amok and go back to their corrupt ways of running secret covert wars which carter had cleaned up while in office. some great president there.

some of the brainwashed sheep here are so much conditioned and brainwashed by the CIA controlled media "which he let run amok and get back to their old ways of running covert wars again after carter had dismanted their operations by firing evil monster Bush sr as director whom Ford appointed,then bringing in Stansfiled Turner who cleaned house getting rid of many CIA covert specialists and cleaning up their imiage by doing so,then reagan got in and of course fired Turner,and replaced him with William Casey who got their covert wars up and running again which is why we had those deaths squads that reagan supported." 

Yet somehow Reagan wasnt a puppet for the elite and was different than Bush somehow according to the troll reagan worshippers here like frank and others.

this is a FACT that all the reagan lovers have played dodgeball with like they do with practially ever fact that shoots down their fantays about reagan.


----------



## Moonglow

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Yep, I was in the Army from 1982-1988, we though it dumb also to have to play guard with unloaded weapons, but when I had to do airport security detail they did give you an old rattling shotgun with two shells you had to carry in your pocket.


----------



## Moonglow

9/11 inside job said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> which it did.I have said this a million times only to watch the fact get ignored by the reagan idiots that it did not matter who was president back then,that because of arms buildups over the years,thats what led to the collapse of the soviet union was internal strifes that went on which led to the end of the cold war.That even his long time pal Dick Nixon said it would have happened anyways no matter who was president  and gorbechev when asked if reagan had a hand in it replied saying-are you serious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone like Reagan had been President instead of that KC crook Truman, the Cold War never would have gotten off the ground.  Using our monopoly on nukes, he would have forced Russia out of Eastern Europe and made it too costly for them to create an empire.
> 
> With all your refusal to trust incompetent and dishonest official sources, you can't come up with a rational alternative.  That is what the Conspiracy conspiracy is all about, as proven by how much money is spent on your websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> B.S from you as always.raygun just like that other evil bastard Truman was just a puppet for the establishment willing to serve the bankers and wall street and fuel government corruption.
> 
> Truman as much of a bastard as he was,at least had the deceny to apologize in his laters years to the american people saying he regretted creating the CIA which he created in 1947 creating it for the sole purpose of gathering information on other countries and having them report thier  findings directly to the president.That was what he created it intially for and its only purose was to do just that.
> 
> He never intended for it to become a policy creating firm for the united states which is what it has become now.He never created it with the intention of having them go overseas and assassinate other world leaders or start secret covert wars in other countrys murdering women and children.Oh and the CIA has even finally came out and admitted recently they were behind the assassination of the Iraninan leader in 1954.
> 
> Now all they need to do is admit they killed Jfk as well which by the way,is overwhelming,you just dont want to look at the evidence same as you dont want to look at the evidence of how corrupt raygun was.
> 
> your doing what all reagan lovers do,evade the facts and change the subject talking about other presidents when cornered just like reagans distant cousin frank just did.
> 
> thats a common trait you all have.
> 
> Truman as much of an evil bastard he was,at least had the decency to apologize to the american people for creating the CIA-the reason the world is in the mess that it is today.Them and the fed.
> 
> He came out and said that it was the worst mistake he ever made in office,that he had helped create a monster.which they are.they are an evil out of control organization that as i said before,brought nazi war criminals over from germany to work for them after world war two.its all documented in one of their documents congress got a hold of in the 70's when they were not near as corrupt like they are now.called OPERATION PAPERCLIP.
> 
> what did reagan do when he came into office? He let the CIA run amok and go back to their corrupt ways of running secret covert wars which carter had cleaned up while in office. some great president there.
Click to expand...


JFK and his brother Robert were killed by the mafia.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Moonglow said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone like Reagan had been President instead of that KC crook Truman, the Cold War never would have gotten off the ground.  Using our monopoly on nukes, he would have forced Russia out of Eastern Europe and made it too costly for them to create an empire.
> 
> With all your refusal to trust incompetent and dishonest official sources, you can't come up with a rational alternative.  That is what the Conspiracy conspiracy is all about, as proven by how much money is spent on your websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.S from you as always.raygun just like that other evil bastard Truman was just a puppet for the establishment willing to serve the bankers and wall street and fuel government corruption.
> 
> Truman as much of a bastard as he was,at least had the deceny to apologize in his laters years to the american people saying he regretted creating the CIA which he created in 1947 creating it for the sole purpose of gathering information on other countries and having them report thier  findings directly to the president.That was what he created it intially for and its only purose was to do just that.
> 
> He never intended for it to become a policy creating firm for the united states which is what it has become now.He never created it with the intention of having them go overseas and assassinate other world leaders or start secret covert wars in other countrys murdering women and children.Oh and the CIA has even finally came out and admitted recently they were behind the assassination of the Iraninan leader in 1954.
> 
> Now all they need to do is admit they killed Jfk as well which by the way,is overwhelming,you just dont want to look at the evidence same as you dont want to look at the evidence of how corrupt raygun was.
> 
> your doing what all reagan lovers do,evade the facts and change the subject talking about other presidents when cornered just like reagans distant cousin frank just did.
> 
> thats a common trait you all have.
> 
> Truman as much of an evil bastard he was,at least had the decency to apologize to the american people for creating the CIA-the reason the world is in the mess that it is today.Them and the fed.
> 
> He came out and said that it was the worst mistake he ever made in office,that he had helped create a monster.which they are.they are an evil out of control organization that as i said before,brought nazi war criminals over from germany to work for them after world war two.its all documented in one of their documents congress got a hold of in the 70's when they were not near as corrupt like they are now.called OPERATION PAPERCLIP.
> 
> what did reagan do when he came into office? He let the CIA run amok and go back to their corrupt ways of running secret covert wars which carter had cleaned up while in office. some great president there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JFK and his brother Robert were killed by the mafia.
Click to expand...


there were some hired hands in the mafia involved no doubt,but it was carried out by the CIA and elements of the military industrial complex in the pentagon whom Eisenhower tried to warn the american people about in his farewell addresss speech he gave.Its a shame the american people did not listen to him and heed his warning.

you should go to youtube.com and type in E howard hunts jfk confession.

for years,Hunt denied he was in dealy plaza that day after many reseachers suspected one of the tramps photographed that day was Hunt.

He did covert operations for Nixon who was the executive action officer in charge of CIA covert wars being run while he was vice president under Eisenhower.they were secret covert wars so secret even Eisenhower did not know about them amazingly.

Hunt for decades,denied he was in dealy plaza that day,but on his deathbed confession about 5 years ago,he confessed he WAS in dealy plaza that day as part of a CIA operation to kill kennedy.

Hunt you might recall,was one of the burgelers arressted in the watergate burglery.The CIA was actually behind Nixon being out of office as well but in a different way obviously.wish the ways kennedy and nixon were taken out of office the way they were,that the roles had been reversed with them killing Nixon instead. 

He was too evil and corrupt so they werent about to kill him to get him out.They werent too happy with Nixon since he did not the let the war go on longer than they wanted it to bowing down under pressure from the american people who were the ones that finally ended the war.

In Nixons tapes during the watergate hearings,you can hear him say-That scab Hunt,he is a loose end,he may expose the whole bay of bigs thing. reseachers always wonderd why Nixon was so obsessed with the bay of pigs thing in his tapes and what they discovered was the reason he kept referring to that even and to Hunt,was because he was refeering to his role in the Kennedy assassination.

Hunt in his deathbed confession he gave to his son that he recorded and you can hear on yourtube,came forward and said he WAS there in dealy plaza that day,that he lied about that all those years,and was there as part of a CIA operation to kill kennedy and Johnson and Nixon knew all about the operation.Nixon and Johnson were pals.they were pals with Hoover as well who also hated the kennedys whom they both also hated.

I used to play with the ida for a long time that it was the mob that did it all by themselves as well but  then i realised that was impossible because of the way oswald was set up,sent to russia renouncing his citiizenship and then came back into the country so easily with no problems whatsoever instead of being arressted liek the traiter he should have been.

plus the mob could not have made the media fall asleep either and controlled the media and spread the lies the media did or change the parade route and make the secret service stand down that day or call the army intelligence in texas to make them stand down wither saying their protection wasnt needed.

so yeah you are correct,they were involved to a degree,just at a lower level as hired hands by the CIA.

the CIA and mob worked hand in hand together.Nixon by the way,had along connection to Jack Ruby,he pardoned ruby in 1947 while a congressmen for unamerican activities.


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because he knew after meeting Gorbachev that the USSR was ripe for taking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While our "intelligence" agencies are made up of preppie frat rats and pseudo-intellectual bookworms, the KGB knows what is going on.   If they were frightened by Star Wars, I trust their analysis more than the PC pacifists who judged it to be unworkable.  Using his acting skills, Reagan managed to frighten our three enemies into submission.  He made the Iranians think they'd be turned into glass if they didn't release the hostages; he made OPEC believe their oilfields would be seized if they didn't drastically reduce their price-gouging, and he made the Soviets abdicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sept. 1, 1983 Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> Ya, the Soviet Union was just petrified of Reagan. They were so afraid of him that on Sept. 1, 1983 they sent out a MIG-15 to shoot down a commercial jet carrying 269 passengers and crew that had departed from Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America with a destination of South Korea.
> The MIG-15 accomplished it's mission and all 269 souls were rendered dead.
Click to expand...


Reagan didn't even have the balls to demand access to the wreckage and bodys floating in the water. America was forced to negociate for the dead bodies of it's citizens.


----------



## PrometheusBound

9/11 inside job said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because he knew after meeting Gorbachev that the USSR was ripe for taking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While our "intelligence" agencies are made up of preppie frat rats and pseudo-intellectual bookworms, the KGB knows what is going on.   If they were frightened by Star Wars, I trust their analysis more than the PC pacifists who judged it to be unworkable.  Using his acting skills, Reagan managed to frighten our three enemies into submission.  He made the Iranians think they'd be turned into glass if they didn't release the hostages; he made OPEC believe their oilfields would be seized if they didn't drastically reduce their price-gouging, and he made the Soviets abdicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> trolling with lies as always do the reagan lovers.Raygun struck a deal with them  not  to release the hostages till after his election in exchange for weapons to be given to them to fight the so called evil communists.
> 
> the hostages were delayed troll so actor reagan could fool the american people into making him look like the genius he was instead of the traiterous scumbag bastard he was..just a bizarre coincidence according you reagan lovers warped brains.no conspiracy there at all.
> 
> Him being the good actor he was,he did just that.fooled everybody with his performances.No conspiracy there at all
Click to expand...


Muzzies are wild animals that only respond to threats of violence against them.  If the Nazislamis released the hostages, they must have been threatened by Reagan.

I'd rather be a troll than a trollop.  Who's your pimp?    All your well-financed websites should have their offices ransacked and their equipment smashed.   You traitors work for the 1% by implying that they are intelligent enough to have earned their wealth.   They are subhuman dumb jock bullies.   It is easy to figure out a true conspiracy, which is only a game plan, once you know the low IQs of their leaders.  They want to cover up their mental inferiority.  You hirelings present them as evil geniuses to make us at least think they are geniuses.  They are the putrid slime that oozes out of Greedheads' trophy wives.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PrometheusBound said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> While our "intelligence" agencies are made up of preppie frat rats and pseudo-intellectual bookworms, the KGB knows what is going on.   If they were frightened by Star Wars, I trust their analysis more than the PC pacifists who judged it to be unworkable.  Using his acting skills, Reagan managed to frighten our three enemies into submission.  He made the Iranians think they'd be turned into glass if they didn't release the hostages; he made OPEC believe their oilfields would be seized if they didn't drastically reduce their price-gouging, and he made the Soviets abdicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trolling with lies as always do the reagan lovers.Raygun struck a deal with them  not  to release the hostages till after his election in exchange for weapons to be given to them to fight the so called evil communists.
> 
> the hostages were delayed troll so actor reagan could fool the american people into making him look like the genius he was instead of the traiterous scumbag bastard he was..just a bizarre coincidence according you reagan lovers warped brains.no conspiracy there at all.
> 
> Him being the good actor he was,he did just that.fooled everybody with his performances.No conspiracy there at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muzzies are wild animals that only respond to threats of violence against them.  If the Nazislamis released the hostages, they must have been threatened by Reagan.
> 
> I'd rather be a troll than a trollop.  Who's your pimp?    All your well-financed websites should have their offices ransacked and their equipment smashed.   You traitors work for the 1% by implying that they are intelligent enough to have earned their wealth.   They are subhuman dumb jock bullies.   It is easy to figure out a true conspiracy, which is only a game plan, once you know the low IQs of their leaders.  They want to cover up their mental inferiority.  You hirelings present them as evil geniuses to make us at least think they are geniuses.  They are the putrid slime that oozes out of Greedheads' trophy wives.
Click to expand...


run,Prom,Run.the evading continues to no surprise.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because he knew after meeting Gorbachev that the USSR was ripe for taking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While our "intelligence" agencies are made up of preppie frat rats and pseudo-intellectual bookworms, the KGB knows what is going on.   If they were frightened by Star Wars, I trust their analysis more than the PC pacifists who judged it to be unworkable.  Using his acting skills, Reagan managed to frighten our three enemies into submission.  He made the Iranians think they'd be turned into glass if they didn't release the hostages; he made OPEC believe their oilfields would be seized if they didn't drastically reduce their price-gouging, and he made the Soviets abdicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sept. 1, 1983 Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> Ya, the Soviet Union was just petrified of Reagan. They were so afraid of him that on Sept. 1, 1983 they sent out a MIG-15 to shoot down a commercial jet carrying 269 passengers and crew that had departed from Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America with a destination of South Korea.
> The MIG-15 accomplished it's mission and all 269 souls were rendered dead.
Click to expand...


November 22, 1963 Fuck JFK, the spoiled rich puke who almost caused WWIII because he wanted to play fraternity bully.

Sept. 1, 1983  Russia defends itself, not taking chances that an airline border crossing was an innocent mistake.  Get better pilots, especially when they're flying near a hostile border.  
February 23, 1973.  In a preview of 9/11, Israel did the same thing.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> those who lived through the reagan era remember how he betrayed the middle and lower class familys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People actually moved up under Reagan unlike this pathetic poor excuse for a president we have now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lies as always from the paid zionist shill.you zionist shills are so stupid you dont even try to hide it that you are a zionist shill that has penetrated this site going out of your way to advertise your support the atrocities of israel.
> 
> your as sloppy as the CIA is with their lies they tell the american people in their controlled media.
> 
> the truth about reagan.
> 
> FOR THE LEFT: Reagan's Betrayal of the Middle Class Comes to Full Fruition
> 
> How the GOP betrayed the White American Middle Class? | YAHOO THOM
Click to expand...


still MORE great material that shoots down the lies spun by the CIA controlled media that reagan ended the cold war and created millions of jobs.the reagan worshippers here wont read any of this or read these links and try to refute them of course.they never do.they always come back and post something irrelevent evading the facts to try and save face in their defeat.

some people just cant deal with facts that they have been brainwashed their whole lives by our government and CIA controlled media not willing to learn the truth from alternative news sources that report facts omitted by them.

then there of course is the zionist paid shill sent here to post lies and reagans distanrt cousin retard frank who has got to be just that,a distant cousin of Reagans the way he  constantly comes back to get his ass handed to him on a platter all the time evading facts about reagan changing the  subject to obama and is so obsessed and irrational and his lunatic ramblings.

a serious open minded researcher would read this and then be mature enough to admit they have been brainwashed thier whole lives instead of hiding behind the computer  like all these reagan coward trolls on this thread  do posting lies to try and save face in defeat.

Here I am about to take them all to school here.the truth will hurt,so they of course will try and shoot the messenger since the truth hurts them so much.

BLAME EVERYTHING ON RONALD REAGAN
As long as the GOP and their media shills continue to blame every problem and their own wrongdoings on Bill Clinton, we will fight back. We are going to counter their "blame Clinton for everything" game with our own campaign to "blame everything on Ronald Reagan". Not only will it be truthful, but it will also counter all of the false positive spin and adulation Reagan has received all these years by people who aren't interested in acknowledging or understanding all the damage his presidency did to our country. 

We are asking our viewers for help in adding to this list by utilizing your creative spirits, historical knowledge, energy, and funny bones. We have started this list to help you get a feel for the types of ideas we might be looking for. 

Feel free to email notice of this campaign to all of your friends. This project will become very informative if everyone pitches in to help! Who knows? We might even be able to change the political discourse in a major way in this country.

Send us something we can blame on Reagan 

We blame Ronald Reagan for these things:

Had it not been for Reagan busting the air traffic controllers union, 9/11 might not have succeeded because former union air traffic controllers would have been better able to spot and isolate the hijacked planes from the others on their screen so they could have been intercepted BEFORE they hit their targets. 
Nuclear weapon proliferation and escalation with the Soviet Union wouldn't have continued as long had it not been for Reagan's insistence on the missile shield ie Star Wars program. 
Contributed to a vast expansion of corporate theft and illegal behavior by disabling governmental functions and regulatory agencies that would have prevented these things. 
Contributed to a general distrust and dislike of government by devaluing civic participation thus discouraging good people from participating in public service. 
Allowed the EPA to unravel laws that protect the environment. If you are breathing bad air and/or drinking contaminated water, it's Reagan's fault. So is the increase in global warming. 
Started the trend where reporters are afraid to question or contradict the president for fear of losing access. 
One reason Osama bin Laden felt emboldened enough to attack us on 9/11 was because Reagan didn't do anything when the Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed in 1983 by suicide bombers killing 241 US servicemen. There was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans. Instead, the Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. 
Because he asked for and got fast track authority for trade bills while removing Congress from negotiating these, we are now shipping out hundreds of billions of dollars per year to buy consumer goods from China and other countries and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars buying our energy from elsewhere so these countries can use our own money to buy our country and our debt. And because of this our trade deficits have skyrocketed and American jobs are being moved overseas. 
The U. S. hostages taken by Iran were deliberately and illegally allowed to remain hostages for much longer than necessary in order to help Reagan beat Carter in the election. 
We are more dependent upon foreign oil than ever before because Reagan reversed Carter's demands for energy independence. He even removed the solar panels from the White House showing his contempt for saving energy. 
We are now the largest net debtor nation and the largest importer of goods because of his trade policies and Reagonomics. 
Because of Reagan our country now meets the definition of a Third World nation. 
Wasted billions of taxpayer dollars that are still being wasted on failed Star Wars systems. 
His policies helped bring about the ruination of thousands of good companies with resulting loss of jobs that were destroyed by leveraged buyouts financed by junk bonds. 
His lack of oversight and regulation created billions of dollars in taxpayer losses from failed Savings and Loans and their resulting bailouts. 
His lack of oversight, outright fraud, and mismanagement created billions of dollars in taxpayer losses from HUD scandals. 
The rush by Reagan to be associated with a successful space shuttle mission, led to the hasty and failed inspections of the O-rings that caused the Challenger blow-up. 
Reagan's 11th commandment of never speaking ill of fellow Republicans has contributed to the extreme partisanship we now see operating in government. 
Helped fuel a culture of greed and extreme avarice. 
His support and coverup of Iran contra affair led to a massive increase in cocaine and cocaine use in this country while illegally arming the Mullahs in Iran. 
Helped reverse decades of social reform policies in Latin America by nurturing savage and brutal free market dictators like Pinochet in Chile. 
Drove down employee wages by increasing the labor pool in an attempt to destroy unions and the Democratic party while turning a blind eye to employers who hired illegal aliens. 
Reagan provided many of the weapons and military hardware Saddam used against the Kurds and other groups and he helped Saddam get international loans, restored formal relations in 1984 and secretly provided Iraq with intelligence and military support, so Reagan helped to prop up this tyrant. 
Promoted the theory of 'trickle down' economics and 'rising tide raises all boats' thus neglecting any efforts to reduce poverty or close increasing income gaps. --from viewer in Columbia, SC 
Ignored the AIDS crisis til Rock Hudson was dying; prevented testing of blood supply and impeded the conduct of effective nationwide educational programs. --from GrantGrandma, Columbia, SC 
Nurtured Pinochet the murdering thug dictator of Chile to institute a savage free-market system that reversed decades of social welfare reforms. 
Responsible for today's out of control homeless population. He closed all the federal mental institutions and the states were unable to absorb them, so the mentally ill population ended up on the streets. --from viewer Sage, Atlanta, GA 
Facilitated the barbarity that raged through Central America in the 1980s, claiming the lives of tens of thousands of peasants, clergy and students, men, women and children...the Central American violence was always more about entrenched ruling elites determined to retain their privileges against impoverished peasants, including descendants of the region's Maya Indians, seeking social, political and economic reforms. --taken from Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com, "Reagan & the Salvadoran Baby Skulls", January 30, 2007. 
Wasted millions of taxpayer money only to find out that pornography isn't harmful to most people. 
Put the country into more debt than all of the previous presidents before him combined. 
Thanks to Reagan's policies the U.S. has become the leading exporter of raw materials and the leading importer of finished goods. 
Set the U.S. on a course to make 9/11 happen by undoing Carter's sound and successful energy conservation policies allowing our dependence on exported oil to grow much faster ever since. 
Popularized the infamous (and now commonly used Republican) defense: "I do not recall". --from viewer Lisa, SD 
Presided over a corrupt administration: 32 members were convicted of crimes, of which two were overturned on appeal. Fourteen of these were related to Iran/Contra, sixteen to the HUD housing scandal, and two to the illegal lobbying of the Administration by ex-officials. Compare this to the Clinton administration: Zero officials indicted. 
The Iran/Contra scandal was a deliberate act in violation of and disrespect for the law by Reagan and others in his administration and was an impeachable offense. 
The collapse of the Soviet Union had little to nothing to do with Reagan's policies nor him making the Soviets spend more on defense as portrayed by those who have contributed to these myths. Instead the collapse of the Soviet Union had already started in the early 1970's and was rooted in the failings of the system created by Lenin and Stalin. 
In his first term he acted just like Bush with the same disasterous results: He championed U.S. military prowess, doubled the military budget, scorned arms control, the UN and international law. Goaded by neocons he launched a war to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. These policies divided us from our alllies. 
Recklessly put Marines into harm's way in a civil war in Lebanon where they were blown up in a terrorist bombing and then invaded hapless Grenada to distract the country from his mistakes. 
By the end of his presidency, 138 administration officials had been convicted, indicted, or subjected to official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violation--more than in any other prior administration. 
His deregulation of the savings and loan industry produced the costliest financial scandal in U.S. history up to that time with a bailout costing taxpayers more than $130 billion. 
He ended Republican support for choice, campaigned against equal rights for women, and perfected race-baiting politics, packed the court with ideologues, all of which contributed to driving the country apart. 
His voodoo economic policies of top-end tax cuts, increased military spending and balanced budgets produced the worst recession since the Great Depression, growing inequality and record deficits. 
His trade policies laid waste American manufacturing. 
His assault on labor and opposition to the minimum wage contributed to a decade in which wages stagnated while CEO salaries soared. 
Caused 10 million Americans to lose their jobs because of plant closings and layoffs from 1983-1988, with half of those who found work forced into lower wage jobs. 
His economic recovery was made possible because it was purchased on credit as the U.S was transformed into the greatest debtor nation. 
Reagan tried as President to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Reagan was a racist. His campaign for President deliberately chose kickoff at the Neshoba County Fair in Meshoba County, Mississipi, a white-supremacist stronghold, to gather votes from white bigots. Meshoba County was a place where several activists had been murdered not that long ago, shot to death by whites enraged at the very idea of people trying to secure the rights of African-Americans. 
He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 
He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. 
In 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation - a veto that Congress overrode. 
Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too. 
While the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before -- and the poverty rate had actually risen. --see Paul Krugman reference #6 below 
Like productivity, American business prestige [during Reagan's presidency] didnt stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership. --see Paul Krugman reference #6 below 
Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never balanced a budget. Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never came close to balancing a budget. Reagan -- the fiscal conservative -- never even came remotely close to even thinking about balancing a budget. So, how did Reagan pay for this? He mired the country in a mammoth explosion of Federal debt. He nearly tripled the national debt. --from Hale Stewart see reference #7 below 
Yes, it's the deregulatory 1980s, not the Swinging Sixties, that paved the way for serial killing on CBS [ie Dexter]. Before then, networks might have been worried about things like what message they were projecting, community service, the Fairness Doctrine, and other old-fashioned stuff that the Federal Communications Commission cared about. By the time the Reagan White House was done dismantling the FCC's oversight powers, all that the commissioners cared about were naughty words and wardrobe malfunctions. --see reference #8 below. 
Murdered 1/2 a million Americans by allowing an Ebola Type Virus (HIV) to run rampant in the gay community. The AIDS crisis was 5 years old before Ronnie publicly said the word AIDS. --from a viewer 
Contributed to the decay of the infrastructure due to lack of maintenance. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --from viewer Jack, in San Francisco, CA 
Turned the United States from a democracy into a capitalist state, by equating capitalism with democracy. --from viewer Jack, in San Francisco, CA 
Reagan administration trained and armed Bin Laden & al qaeda in the 80's thus arguably causing 9/11. --from viewer Quincy, see reference #9 below. 
Financial scandals like the $50bn. Madoff ponzi scheme would more likely have been caught had Reagan not been able to sell the role of government as a negative force in people's lives and a bad place for anyone to work. This attitude promoted Wall Street greed by taking talented people out of good jobs at the SEC and other regulatory agencies where they felt devalued and underpaid. It also caused a drain of talent within government itself leading to more waste, inefficiency, and lack of oversight. 
Signed into law in 1982 the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act that turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe that 25 years later became the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The change in Americas financial rules was Reagans biggest legacy. And its the gift that keeps on taking. --from Paul Krugman column #10 below. 
Ronald Reagan campaigned on "less government in our lives" by decreasing government spending. By the end of his term he increased government spending by 68%. --from a viewer 
Supplied weapons to leaders of militant groups in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden, in the name of fighting communism. --from a viewer 
People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big-hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected. -from Greg Palast article #11 below. 
And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog - then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport. -from Greg Palast article #11 below. 
In the 1970s and 1980s, as Latin American security forces were sharpening themselves into finely honed killing machines, Reagan was there as an ardent defender, making excuses for the atrocities, and sending money and equipment to make the forces even more lethal. For instance, in the late 1970s, when Argentina's dictators were inventing a new state-terror program called "disappearances" -- the unacknowledged murders of dissidents -- Reagan was making himself useful as a columnist deflecting the human rights complaints coming from the Carter administration. - from Robert Parry column #12 below. 
More substantively, Reagan authorized CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service for training and arming the Nicaraguan Contras, a rebel force created to overthrow Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. The Contras were soon implicated in human rights atrocities of their own. - from Robert Parry column #12 below. 
After taking office in 1981, Reagan pushed to overturn an arms embargo that Carter had imposed on Guatemala for its wretched human rights record. Yet even as Reagan moved to loosen up the military aid ban, U.S. intelligence agencies were confirming new Guatemalan government massacres. - from Robert Parry column #12 below. 
Despite the widespread evidence of Guatemalan government atrocities cited in the internal U.S. government cables, political operatives for the Reagan administration sought to conceal the crimes. On Oct. 22, 1982, for instance, the U.S. Embassy claimed the Guatemalan government was the victim of a communist-inspired "disinformation campaign." - from Robert Parry column #12 below. 
Reagan's falsification of the historical record became a hallmark of the conflicts in El Salvador and Nicaragua as well as Guatemala. In one case, Reagan personally lashed out at a human rights investigator named Reed Brody, a New York lawyer who had collected affidavits from more than 100 witnesses to atrocities carried out by the U.S.-supported Contras in Nicaragua..But amid all the extravagant hoopla and teary tributes to the late president, perhaps some Americans will stop and think of all the decent people in Latin America and elsewhere who died horrible and unnecessary deaths as Ronald Reagan cheerily defended their murderers.. - from Robert Parry column #12 below. 
Despite a growing international movement to topple apartheid in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan maintained a close alliance with a South African government that was showing no signs of serious reform. And the Reagan administration demonized opponents of apartheid, most notably the African National Congress, as dangerous and pro-communist. Reagan even vetoed a bill to impose sanctions on South Africa, only to be overruled by Congress. On a trip to the United States after winning the Nobel Prize in 1984, Bishop Desmond Tutu memorably declared that Reagan's policy was "immoral, evil and totally un-Christian." - from Justin Elliott column #13 below. 
The Bush-Reagan administration was investigated by both federal and district authorities for running a homosexual prostitution ring. The ring included among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and US and foreign businessmen with close social ties to Washington's political elite. The investigation included credit card fraud, illegal interstate prostitution, abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion, extortion, larceny and related illicit drug trafficking and use by prosititutes and their clients. - from viewer Quincy see #14 below. 
Sucked up to right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch. paving the way for propaganda purveyors FOX NEWS(yeah.right)Channel! --from viewer Kim K., Pleasantville, NJ 
Seduced baby-boomers..the same people who protested against war, bigotry, and poverty..to "back-pedal" and think that GREED IS GOOD. Now they're like their parents, which they said never would happen.--from viewer Kim K., Pleasantville, NY 
References used to compile this list:

1. "Way Out There in the Blue", by Frances Fitzgerald, Simon & Schuster, 2000
2. "Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years", by Haynes Johnson, Doubleday, 1991
3. "What Liberal Media: The Truth About Bias and the News," by Eric Alterman, Basic Books, 2003
4. "Conservatism Itself", by Robert Borosage, The American Prospect, July/August 2007
5. "Righting Reagan's Wrongs?" by Bob Herbert, The New York Times, November 13, 2007
6. "Debunking the Reagan Myth" by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 21, 2008.
7. "Ronald Reagan: Fiscal Disaster", by Hale 'Bonddad' Stewart, Huffingtonpost.com, January 21, 2008, complete with charts and graphs
8. "Blame Reagan for serial killing on TV", by Ed Siegel, Boston Globe, February 10, 2008.
9. "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001", by Steve Coll, 2004, Penguin Press HC
10. "Reagan Did It", by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, May 31, 2009
11. "Reagan: Killer, Coward, Con-man", The Observer London, by Greg Palast, February 7, 2011
12. Ronald Reagan, Enabler of Atrocitiey, by Robert Parry
13. Reagan's embrace of apartheid South Africa, by Justin Elliott, February 5, 2011
14. "Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush
Call boys took midnight tour of White House'" by Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald, The Washington Times. June 29, 1989, found on flyingsnail.com. Also this clearer image and this image of the actual news report of this story.

still even MORE great stuff the reagan worshipping trolls wont read either.they'll never read these facts in these links below either.they never do,they always run off with their tail between their legs everytime.

Stanching the American jobs hemorrhage

BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism

Robert L. Borosage: The Reagan Ruins

Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not done posting. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it means nothing. I'm guessing there are others with the ability to figure out what I am doing. Sorry you don't recognize the dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should check if you have dain Bramage
Click to expand...


He's showing his inner power-hungry viciousness.  He wants us to waste our time Googling and Wikiing at his bidding.  These autistic megalomaniacs always give themselves away.


----------



## Moonglow

Dante said:


> Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. _It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes._ It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.
> 
> https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488



Which made my taxes increase during that period.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Moonglow said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone like Reagan had been President instead of that KC crook Truman, the Cold War never would have gotten off the ground.  Using our monopoly on nukes, he would have forced Russia out of Eastern Europe and made it too costly for them to create an empire.
> 
> With all your refusal to trust incompetent and dishonest official sources, you can't come up with a rational alternative.  That is what the Conspiracy conspiracy is all about, as proven by how much money is spent on your websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.S from you as always.raygun just like that other evil bastard Truman was just a puppet for the establishment willing to serve the bankers and wall street and fuel government corruption.
> 
> Truman as much of a bastard as he was,at least had the deceny to apologize in his laters years to the american people saying he regretted creating the CIA which he created in 1947 creating it for the sole purpose of gathering information on other countries and having them report thier  findings directly to the president.That was what he created it intially for and its only purose was to do just that.
> 
> He never intended for it to become a policy creating firm for the united states which is what it has become now.He never created it with the intention of having them go overseas and assassinate other world leaders or start secret covert wars in other countrys murdering women and children.Oh and the CIA has even finally came out and admitted recently they were behind the assassination of the Iraninan leader in 1954.
> 
> Now all they need to do is admit they killed Jfk as well which by the way,is overwhelming,you just dont want to look at the evidence same as you dont want to look at the evidence of how corrupt raygun was.
> 
> your doing what all reagan lovers do,evade the facts and change the subject talking about other presidents when cornered just like reagans distant cousin frank just did.
> 
> thats a common trait you all have.
> 
> Truman as much of an evil bastard he was,at least had the decency to apologize to the american people for creating the CIA-the reason the world is in the mess that it is today.Them and the fed.
> 
> He came out and said that it was the worst mistake he ever made in office,that he had helped create a monster.which they are.they are an evil out of control organization that as i said before,brought nazi war criminals over from germany to work for them after world war two.its all documented in one of their documents congress got a hold of in the 70's when they were not near as corrupt like they are now.called OPERATION PAPERCLIP.
> 
> what did reagan do when he came into office? He let the CIA run amok and go back to their corrupt ways of running secret covert wars which carter had cleaned up while in office. some great president there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JFK and his brother Robert were killed by the mafia.
Click to expand...


In order to prevent WWIII over the Cuban missile crisis, the CIA and KGB got together and arranged tradeoffs.  We take our missiles out of Turkey and they take theirs out of Cuba.  To punish the loose-cannon spoiled-rotten scumbag JFK, we had to assassinate him and the Russians had to depose Khrushchev for not understanding that spoiled rich kids are nothing but dumb jock bullies.

  Without his Daddy's money, JFK would have been a useless nobody.   The hereditary classes must be outlawed before they kill the rest of us.  JFK was no better a person than that lazy, low-IQ draftdodger Bush.


----------



## Camp

PrometheusBound said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not done posting. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean it means nothing. I'm guessing there are others with the ability to figure out what I am doing. Sorry you don't recognize the dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should check if you have dain Bramage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's showing his inner power-hungry viciousness.  He wants us to waste our time Googling and Wikiing at his bidding.  These autistic megalomaniacs always give themselves away.
Click to expand...


Should have recognized the creation of mondern day terrorism after checking just a few of the dates I provided. Everyone of the dates I provided followed by a Fuck Ronald Reagan tag is the date of a terrorist attack on the United States. And I wasn't done posting dates.
I'm not that interested in all the economic crap. 
The Ronald Reagan era gave birth to terrorism being an accepted tactic of our enemies. He created the atmosphere that terrorist operated in until 9/11. His signing of a National Secuirity Directive in early April 1984 created a task force that would thow away the national stategy of refusing to negociate with terrorist and adapt one of not only negociating, but making deals. The Directive was #138 if you are interested.


----------



## PrometheusBound

9/11 inside job said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> trolling with lies as always do the reagan lovers.Raygun struck a deal with them  not  to release the hostages till after his election in exchange for weapons to be given to them to fight the so called evil communists.
> 
> the hostages were delayed troll so actor reagan could fool the american people into making him look like the genius he was instead of the traiterous scumbag bastard he was..just a bizarre coincidence according you reagan lovers warped brains.no conspiracy there at all.
> 
> Him being the good actor he was,he did just that.fooled everybody with his performances.No conspiracy there at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muzzies are wild animals that only respond to threats of violence against them.  If the Nazislamis released the hostages, they must have been threatened by Reagan.
> 
> I'd rather be a troll than a trollop.  Who's your pimp?    All your well-financed websites should have their offices ransacked and their equipment smashed.   You traitors work for the 1% by implying that they are intelligent enough to have earned their wealth.   They are subhuman dumb jock bullies.   It is easy to figure out a true conspiracy, which is only a game plan, once you know the low IQs of their leaders.  They want to cover up their mental inferiority.  You hirelings present them as evil geniuses to make us at least think they are geniuses.  They are the putrid slime that oozes out of Greedheads' trophy wives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> run,Prom,Run.the evading continues to no surprise.
Click to expand...


You just love spoiled-rotten Heirheads, don't you?  Slavish bootlicking peasants like your ilk should go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where you belong, where you can choke on the dust left by your guillotine-fodder heroes.  The rich get cut off from their Daddy's Money at age 18.  If real Americans have to do it on our own, so must they.
Or they must die, as at Virginia Tech.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PrometheusBound said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> B.S from you as always.raygun just like that other evil bastard Truman was just a puppet for the establishment willing to serve the bankers and wall street and fuel government corruption.
> 
> Truman as much of a bastard as he was,at least had the deceny to apologize in his laters years to the american people saying he regretted creating the CIA which he created in 1947 creating it for the sole purpose of gathering information on other countries and having them report thier  findings directly to the president.That was what he created it intially for and its only purose was to do just that.
> 
> He never intended for it to become a policy creating firm for the united states which is what it has become now.He never created it with the intention of having them go overseas and assassinate other world leaders or start secret covert wars in other countrys murdering women and children.Oh and the CIA has even finally came out and admitted recently they were behind the assassination of the Iraninan leader in 1954.
> 
> Now all they need to do is admit they killed Jfk as well which by the way,is overwhelming,you just dont want to look at the evidence same as you dont want to look at the evidence of how corrupt raygun was.
> 
> your doing what all reagan lovers do,evade the facts and change the subject talking about other presidents when cornered just like reagans distant cousin frank just did.
> 
> thats a common trait you all have.
> 
> Truman as much of an evil bastard he was,at least had the decency to apologize to the american people for creating the CIA-the reason the world is in the mess that it is today.Them and the fed.
> 
> He came out and said that it was the worst mistake he ever made in office,that he had helped create a monster.which they are.they are an evil out of control organization that as i said before,brought nazi war criminals over from germany to work for them after world war two.its all documented in one of their documents congress got a hold of in the 70's when they were not near as corrupt like they are now.called OPERATION PAPERCLIP.
> 
> what did reagan do when he came into office? He let the CIA run amok and go back to their corrupt ways of running secret covert wars which carter had cleaned up while in office. some great president there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK and his brother Robert were killed by the mafia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to prevent WWIII over the Cuban missile crisis, the CIA and KGB got together and arranged tradeoffs.  We take our missiles out of Turkey and they take theirs out of Cuba.  To punish the loose-cannon spoiled-rotten scumbag JFK, we had to assassinate him and the Russians had to depose Khrushchev for not understanding that spoiled rich kids are nothing but dumb jock bullies.
> 
> Without his Daddy's money, JFK would have been a useless nobody.   The hereditary classes must be outlawed before they kill the rest of us.  JFK was no better a person than that lazy, low-IQ draftdodger Bush.
Click to expand...


a reasonable post with no trolling for once.im impressed.

everything about this post is correct amazingly accept the last sentence.up till then you had everything right.

Unlike Bushwacker,Jfk developed a conscience and could not go along with the establishments agenda anymore stepping on some very powerful toes in washington signing an exectuive order that would have effectively ended the fed,for 5 months we had money that was backed by something,silver issued by the treasury instead of the fed.we had dollars called UNITED STATES NOTES issued by the treasury.instead of these worthless federal reserve notes we have now.

Jfk was taking steps to get back to the constitution again where the people had control over the government again instead of all these corporations that do now.

I am far more versed on this subject more than anybody here most likely in the fact I have read over 200 books on his assassination and have met many of those authors and spoke to them over the years.

after his assassination,just like with his policy on  vietnam,Johnson reversed his executive order and the printing of the united states notes stopped shortly sometime after.he had some 500,000 ready to go and printed out,he only got about 10,000 or so circulated in that timeframe before they assassinated him.

Oh and unlike Bushwacker,he took steps to try and get rid of the CIA as well turning over covert operations the CIA ran to the pentagon which never got implemented of course.no better a person that bushwacker my ass.

thats why i have tried to spell out to idiots here dummies style a million times only to watch it go ignored everytime,that carter was the only good president we have had since jfk.Like Jfk,carter also tried to do the right thing as well and also tried to get rid of the CIA.

He came in and fired bastard Gerald Fords appointee Bush sr and replaced him with Stansfield Turner who cleaned up the CIA's image replacing Bush with Turner who fired many CIA covert specialists.bastard reagan got in,fired Turner,replaced him with William Casey,and as i said a million times before,the CIA got back to their old dirty tricks campaine again with their covert operations runnign again.

reagan a great president my ass.sure he was,and Im going to be the next POTUS as well.


----------



## Meathead

Reagan''s pull on dingtbats seems to be stronger than the moon's pull on llunitics, and he's been dead for about 20 years FFS.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Reagan''s pull on dingtbats seems to be stronger than the moon's pull on llunitics, and he's been dead for about 20 years FFS.



We are supposed to learn from past mistakes.


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> Directive 138 also was the beinning of Iran/Contra


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should check if you have dain Bramage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's showing his inner power-hungry viciousness.  He wants us to waste our time Googling and Wikiing at his bidding.  These autistic megalomaniacs always give themselves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should have recognized the creation of mondern day terrorism after checking just a few of the dates I provided. Everyone of the dates I provided followed by a Fuck Ronald Reagan tag is the date of a terrorist attack on the United States. And I wasn't done posting dates.
> I'm not that interested in all the economic crap.
> The Ronald Reagan era gave birth to terrorism being an accepted tactic of our enemies. He created the atmosphere that terrorist operated in until 9/11. His signing of a National Secuirity Directive in early April 1984 created a task force that would thow away the national stategy of refusing to negociate with terrorist and adapt one of not only negociating, but making deals. The Directive was #138 if you are interested.
Click to expand...


You're full of crap you and your conspiracy loon brother....Mental patients


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK and his brother Robert were killed by the mafia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to prevent WWIII over the Cuban missile crisis, the CIA and KGB got together and arranged tradeoffs.  We take our missiles out of Turkey and they take theirs out of Cuba.  To punish the loose-cannon spoiled-rotten scumbag JFK, we had to assassinate him and the Russians had to depose Khrushchev for not understanding that spoiled rich kids are nothing but dumb jock bullies.
> 
> Without his Daddy's money, JFK would have been a useless nobody.   The hereditary classes must be outlawed before they kill the rest of us.  JFK was no better a person than that lazy, low-IQ draftdodger Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a reasonable post with no trolling for once.im impressed.
> 
> everything about this post is correct amazingly accept the last sentence.up till then you had everything right.
> 
> Unlike Bushwacker,Jfk developed a conscience and could not go along with the establishments agenda anymore stepping on some very powerful toes in washington signing an exectuive order that would have effectively ended the fed,for 5 months we had money that was backed by something,silver issued by the treasury instead of the fed.we had dollars called UNITED STATES NOTES issued by the treasury.instead of these worthless federal reserve notes we have now.
> 
> Jfk was taking steps to get back to the constitution again where the people had control over the government again instead of all these corporations that do now.
> 
> I am far more versed on this subject more than anybody here most likely in the fact I have read over 200 books on his assassination and have met many of those authors and spoke to them over the years.
> 
> after his assassination,just like with his policy on  vietnam,Johnson reversed his executive order and the printing of the united states notes stopped shortly sometime after.he had some 500,000 ready to go and printed out,he only got about 10,000 or so circulated in that timeframe before they assassinated him.
> 
> Oh and unlike Bushwacker,he took steps to try and get rid of the CIA as well turning over covert operations the CIA ran to the pentagon which never got implemented of course.no better a person that bushwacker my ass.
> 
> thats why i have tried to spell out to idiots here dummies style a million times only to watch it go ignored everytime,that carter was the only good president we have had since jfk.Like Jfk,carter also tried to do the right thing as well and also tried to get rid of the CIA.
> 
> He came in and fired bastard Gerald Fords appointee Bush sr and replaced him with Stansfield Turner who cleaned up the CIA's image replacing Bush with Turner who fired many CIA covert specialists.bastard reagan got in,fired Turner,replaced him with William Casey,and as i said a million times before,the CIA got back to their old dirty tricks campaine again with their covert operations runnign again.
> 
> reagan a great president my ass.sure he was,and Im going to be the next POTUS as well.
Click to expand...


Yes JFK was assassinated for trying to break the Fed


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.


----------



## Camp

On March 16, 1984 CIA station chief Lt. Col. William Francis Buckley was kidnapped by terrorist. He was tortured and murdered. The group responsible was Hezbolla. It recieved and continue's to recieve funding from Iran. No retribution was ever ordered or taken by the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan for the murder of Lt. Col. Buckley.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.
Click to expand...






> Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional. Psychological data bolster their case: *people who harbor conspiracist thoughts are also more inclined to paranoid ideation and schizotypy, a mild form of schizophrenia.* As conspiracy theory expert Timothy Melley of Miami University has put it, these beliefs are often dismissed as &#8220;the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe.&#8221;



Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American


----------



## Camp

April 18, 1983
US Embassy in Beirut bombed in a terrorist attack. 2 Americans killed.


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional. Psychological data bolster their case: *people who harbor conspiracist thoughts are also more inclined to paranoid ideation and schizotypy, a mild form of schizophrenia.* As conspiracy theory expert Timothy Melley of Miami University has put it, these beliefs are often dismissed as the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American
Click to expand...


Conspiracy theorys allege that a conspiracy has occured. What exactly is the conspiracy you seem to think I am promoting? Conspiracy theorist allege things are hidden. Iran/Contra is not hidden. Are you in some kind of denial that the USA didn't trade arms to Iran?


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional. Psychological data bolster their case: *people who harbor conspiracist thoughts are also more inclined to paranoid ideation and schizotypy, a mild form of schizophrenia.* As conspiracy theory expert Timothy Melley of Miami University has put it, these beliefs are often dismissed as the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theorys allege that a conspiracy has occured. What exactly is the conspiracy you seem to think I am promoting? Conspiracy theorist allege things are hidden. Iran/Contra is not hidden. Are you in some kind of denial that the USA didn't trade arms to Iran?
Click to expand...


you're throwing out all kinds of bullshit aren't you? you just throw it out there with nothing to back up anything, doesn't mean much does it? Arms for hostages under Reagan may have happened  but anything done under Reagan was not done for any personal gain if someone under Reagan did trade arms to free American prisoners or to keep the muslim nujobs fighting each other then so be it


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theorys allege that a conspiracy has occured. What exactly is the conspiracy you seem to think I am promoting? Conspiracy theorist allege things are hidden. Iran/Contra is not hidden. Are you in some kind of denial that the USA didn't trade arms to Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're throwing out all kinds of bullshit aren't you? you just throw it out there with nothing to back up anything, doesn't mean much does it? Arms for hostages under Reagan may have happened  but anything done under Reagan was not done for any personal gain if someone under Reagan did trade arms to free American prisoners or to keep the muslim nujobs fighting each other then so be it
Click to expand...


I'm putting out dates of specific terrorist attacks without adding politics or opinion other than the Fuck Ronald Reagan tag. I'm not making up the fact that under Reagan terrorist attacks occured on a somewhat regular basis. The dates are all that is needed to confirm this fact. I have purposely left out analysis and evaluation so persons interested can make their own determination. I feel no reason for convincing anyone of anything is necessary. It is what it is. You get it or you don't.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directive 138 also was the beinning of Iran/Contra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't expect Reagan to be aware of terrorism when you yourself are unaware that it began with the financing of it through the price-gouging of OPEC, starting with the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973.  It had been a time bomb from time immemorial.   Only Churchill was wise enough to predict the return of the jihad.  Reagan wised up pretty quickly after his failure in Lebanon, attacking Libya.
Click to expand...


----------



## PrometheusBound

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to prevent WWIII over the Cuban missile crisis, the CIA and KGB got together and arranged tradeoffs.  We take our missiles out of Turkey and they take theirs out of Cuba.  To punish the loose-cannon spoiled-rotten scumbag JFK, we had to assassinate him and the Russians had to depose Khrushchev for not understanding that spoiled rich kids are nothing but dumb jock bullies.
> 
> Without his Daddy's money, JFK would have been a useless nobody.   The hereditary classes must be outlawed before they kill the rest of us.  JFK was no better a person than that lazy, low-IQ draftdodger Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a reasonable post with no trolling for once.im impressed.
> 
> everything about this post is correct amazingly accept the last sentence.up till then you had everything right.
> 
> Unlike Bushwacker,Jfk developed a conscience and could not go along with the establishments agenda anymore stepping on some very powerful toes in washington signing an exectuive order that would have effectively ended the fed,for 5 months we had money that was backed by something,silver issued by the treasury instead of the fed.we had dollars called UNITED STATES NOTES issued by the treasury.instead of these worthless federal reserve notes we have now.
> 
> Jfk was taking steps to get back to the constitution again where the people had control over the government again instead of all these corporations that do now.
> 
> I am far more versed on this subject more than anybody here most likely in the fact I have read over 200 books on his assassination and have met many of those authors and spoke to them over the years.
> 
> after his assassination,just like with his policy on  vietnam,Johnson reversed his executive order and the printing of the united states notes stopped shortly sometime after.he had some 500,000 ready to go and printed out,he only got about 10,000 or so circulated in that timeframe before they assassinated him.
> 
> Oh and unlike Bushwacker,he took steps to try and get rid of the CIA as well turning over covert operations the CIA ran to the pentagon which never got implemented of course.no better a person that bushwacker my ass.
> 
> thats why i have tried to spell out to idiots here dummies style a million times only to watch it go ignored everytime,that carter was the only good president we have had since jfk.Like Jfk,carter also tried to do the right thing as well and also tried to get rid of the CIA.
> 
> He came in and fired bastard Gerald Fords appointee Bush sr and replaced him with Stansfield Turner who cleaned up the CIA's image replacing Bush with Turner who fired many CIA covert specialists.bastard reagan got in,fired Turner,replaced him with William Casey,and as i said a million times before,the CIA got back to their old dirty tricks campaine again with their covert operations runnign again.
> 
> reagan a great president my ass.sure he was,and Im going to be the next POTUS as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes JFK was assassinated for trying to break the Fed
Click to expand...


Yes, that spoiled trigger-happy bully spawned by a Wall Street crook was a real "man of the people."


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> On March 16, 1984 CIA station chief Lt. Col. William Francis Buckley was kidnapped by terrorist. He was tortured and murdered. The group responsible was Hezbolla. It received and continues to receive funding from Iran. No retribution was ever ordered or taken by the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan for the murder of Lt. Col. Buckley.



Sure.  As long as you conveniently ignore Reagan's financing Iraq's 10-year war against Iran, which set back the Shiite jihad 20 years.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional. Psychological data bolster their case: *people who harbor conspiracist thoughts are also more inclined to paranoid ideation and schizotypy, a mild form of schizophrenia.* As conspiracy theory expert Timothy Melley of Miami University has put it, these beliefs are often dismissed as the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American
Click to expand...


The Conspiracy websites are all controlled by the people they pretend to oppose.  This is just a game plan (Is a winning coach a "conspirator?"  You would have to say so).  Its strategy is to neutralize people who are justifiably suspicious of what they are told by higher authorities.  They don't realize that the theorists themselves are higher authorities.  The logical conclusion of these false-flag traps is that our rulers are geniuses, when they are in reality low-IQ bluebloods and brown-noses, and are supernaturally powerful, when we outnumber them 100 to 1 and can crush them like grapes.   It is best to figure things out on your own.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theorys allege that a conspiracy has occured. What exactly is the conspiracy you seem to think I am promoting? Conspiracy theorist allege things are hidden. Iran/Contra is not hidden. Are you in some kind of denial that the USA didn't trade arms to Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're throwing out all kinds of bullshit aren't you? you just throw it out there with nothing to back up anything, doesn't mean much does it? Arms for hostages under Reagan may have happened  but anything done under Reagan was not done for any personal gain if someone under Reagan did trade arms to free American prisoners or to keep the muslim nutjobs fighting each other then so be it
Click to expand...


It's about time that Americans woke up to the fact that the CIA is run by preppy retards, assisted by escapist academics sheltered from the real world.   Reagan can't be blamed for just focusing on Communism.   Instead, our closed and exclusionary establishment should be blamed for not financing people to develop their talents.   Our system puts inferior people in superior positions.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.
Click to expand...


see what its like trying to have any kind of rational discussion with retard frank?

no surprise,the guy is obviously some relative of his son,the only explanation for his retarded ramblings and evasion of facts.




Yes, that spoiled trigger-happy bully spawned by a Wall Street crook was a real "man of the people." 
__________________
still playing dodgeball I see.

ignore the fact and talk about his crooked father.thats a great way to debate.

since you have memory comprehension problems,here it is for you AGAIN.

JFK in the very beginning,went along with what the establishment wanted,but after a few months of doing so,unlike Bushwacker,he developed a conscience and could not go along with it amymore.

He tried to end the fed,tried to take steps to get rid of the CIA,and unliked Bushwacker Jr,was not a chop off the old block.Joe Kennedy had ties to the mob and the nazis just like Bush sr's father Prescott Bush did.

George Bush sr and Bush jr,are both chips off the old block just like their fathers.The mafia got JFK elected because of his fathers ties to the mob.They thought his son would let the mob roam freely in return for getting him elected,what did Jfk and bobby do? they turned around and did the opposite,going after the big fish in the water.Bobby especially prosecuted key high power mob figures.

Bush jr never did that,never tried to reinstate Kennedys executive order,no president has since then, or ever tried to get rid of the CIA dolt.



You're full of crap you and your conspiracy loon brother....Mental patients 

so says the paid zionist shill who has done nothing but lie since first coming on here just like your handlers pay you like the lying troll you are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional. Psychological data bolster their case: *people who harbor conspiracist thoughts are also more inclined to paranoid ideation and schizotypy, a mild form of schizophrenia.* As conspiracy theory expert Timothy Melley of Miami University has put it, these beliefs are often dismissed as the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American
Click to expand...


more propaganda from the paid zionist shill troll here. these so called scholars are funded by the government and have deep ties to them,a fact this paid zionist shill troll here leaves out.and scientific america is another front for the CIA as this zionst shill here already knows.

the reagan lovers here are the delusional paanoid nuts.they wont even try and address facts changing the subject when cornered just like this zionst shill just does.instead of truying to counter my links i keep displaying,he keeps trolling the boards,dodging those facts posting an irrelevent link.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PrometheusBound said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theorys allege that a conspiracy has occured. What exactly is the conspiracy you seem to think I am promoting? Conspiracy theorist allege things are hidden. Iran/Contra is not hidden. Are you in some kind of denial that the USA didn't trade arms to Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're throwing out all kinds of bullshit aren't you? you just throw it out there with nothing to back up anything, doesn't mean much does it? Arms for hostages under Reagan may have happened  but anything done under Reagan was not done for any personal gain if someone under Reagan did trade arms to free American prisoners or to keep the muslim nutjobs fighting each other then so be it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about time that Americans woke up to the fact that the CIA is run by preppy retards, assisted by escapist academics sheltered from the real world.   Reagan can't be blamed for just focusing on Communism.   Instead, our closed and exclusionary establishment should be blamed for not financing people to develop their talents.   Our system puts inferior people in superior positions.
Click to expand...


there you go,doing exactly what he said you were doing,posting  all kinds of bullshit evading facts changing the subject knowing your cornered.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaTedoRjANU]The Very Best of Ronald Reagan, Part 1/2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RKMBrown

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZflkvJIrmQ]The Very Best of Ronald Reagan, Part 2/2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RKMBrown

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gfnmDGk0KM]Rolling Thunder - A Marine's Vigil - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN

I find it amusing that so many progressives on this board are willing to invest this much effort in an attempt to rip Ronald Reagan's reputation to shreds twenty plus years after he left office.

You could see this coming a mile off though...

The comparisons between Obama and Reagan were inevitable. Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter and inherited an economy that was in shambles. Obama took over from W. with an economy also in shambles. Each man had VASTLY different solutions to the problems that faced them. Each man had a completely different way of dealing with opposition to their agendas.

In the early points of the Obama Administration, Barry's supporters repeatedly made the valid point that unemployment was up in the early stages of Reagan's first term and public approval of his approach to the economic crisis was low. Give Obama the same amount of time and you'll see that HIS policies are going to create the same results as Reagan's. Give Obama time and he'll grow the economy and cut unemployment just as Reagan did!

The problem that Obama supporters have is that Obama's economic "plan" was put into action over five years ago...we've spent an unprecedented amount of money on it...and the economy simply hasn't responded. Growth is anemic and unemployment levels have remained high. Let's face it, Kiddies...you don't invent a statistic like "jobs created or saved" if your economic policies are working. You come up with that if they are NOT working.

At this point in Reagan's second term the country was experiencing strong economic growth and people felt good about the future because they believed that Reagan had a plan and that his plan actually worked. 

How many people out there HONESTLY believe that Barack Obama has a plan to fix the economy any more? How many of you even know who's running the show for Barry now that Larry Summers, Christina Romer and Austin Goolsby have all departed? Who's Barry's chief economist now? What is their economic plan going forward? Does anyone know? Does one exist at all?

I ask those questions because what I think is happening with strings like this, is that the left have given up even trying to defend the economic policies of this Administration because they haven't worked so far and nothing indicates that will change any time soon. So what is left? If you can't talk about the "successes" of your guy then the only thing left is to talk about the "failures" of the other side's guy. That's why there are so many Reagan attack strings being started by Obama supporters. 

I find it amusing that so many Reaganuts on this board are so desperate to defend that evil bastard that they have to make up lies and evades facts to do so in the process 20 years later after he has left office.lol

funny you make up lies saying they had vastly different views when BOTH of them shipped thousands of jobes overseas.lol.

THEN make up lies that the economy was in shambles un Carter as well.lol.

You Reaganuts in your denials only help us prove our point for us.You just proved my point for me in your OWN words saying  right here that in the early stages of his first term unemployment was up and public approval to the economic crisis was low. I said you were correct about that earlier adding on that we were no better off under Reagan the majoriy of his first term than we were under Carter which you ignored.lol.

Oh and somehow you Reaganuts always seem to get the lunatic idea here that just because we tell the truth about the corruption of Reagan that we somehow are a fan of Obama when I have said many times here as well as pretty much every Reagan basher has,that I cant stand Obama either.

Its only reaganuts like Crusader Retard who keep bringing up Obamas name when people like myself come on here and Bash that other idiot bastard Reagan.



Here is proof contrary to your ramblings,the econony prospered under Carter.That only inflation was high under him but unemployment was low.you sir have been schooled.lol. as I said before,the only thing you got correct was that Reagans first term,unemploument was high and he had a bad approval rating from most the public.

It wasnt till the last year when he was running for relection,that he put more jobs back having to do so to make himself look good that he was for the people.he was a good actor the way he fooled so many people like you.hee hee.

Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it


PESKY LITTLE FACTS LIKE THESE BELOW THAT ARE IN THAT LINK ARE FACTS THE REAGANUTS HERE NEVER WILL READ OF COURSE.THEY ONLY LOOK AT ONE SIDE OF THE COIN AS PROVED THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE THREAD.


Carter is actually the only decent president we have had since JFK,our last great president.carter is the exception to the last 50 years of every president being worse than the previous one.Ford was much worse participating in the jfk coverup which was why he was rewarded the office of the presidecy for his participation in thr warren commission coverup. they can type in anything they want on the net,carter had nothing to do with the inflation that went on during his term,the fed got it created 15 years before he became presidetn and it just kept snowballing.Carter inherited it.

the president has no control over the fed. Its well known unemployment was much worse under reagan than carter.

Carter is actually the one to thank for the turnaround in the economy.He appointed Paul Voclker as chairman of the federal reserve board who was the one who actually started to turn the economy around in Carters last year.

He got the ball rolling under Carter,and then rescued the economy later on in the 80's and Reagan was the one who took credit for it as this link below proves.as you can see from the graph below,while inflation was worse under Carter,unemployment skyrocketed and got much worse under reagaa.I was there,I remember the Reagan years and how disasterous it was.Reagans first year in office,unemployment was much worse than Under Carter.It wasnt till his second term,that unemployment started going down under Reagan as the chart shows.

MYTH
Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it


Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s. 



Summary 

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms. 



Argument 

In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives call "the Seven Fat Years" or "the longest economic expansion in peacetime history." 

Were either of these presidents responsible for their fortune with the economy? No. Carter battled the peak of an inflationary trend that began in 1965. In the following chart, take special notice of the long, slow climb in the inflation column:

Year Inflation Unemployment (1)
-------------------------------
1961 1.0% 6.7%
1962 1.0 5.6
1963 1.3 5.6
1964 1.3 5.2
1965 1.6 4.5 < Vietnam war spending increases
1966 2.9 3.8
1967 3.1 3.8
1968 4.2 3.5
1969 5.5 3.5
1970 5.7 5.0
1971 4.4 6.0
1972 3.2 5.6
1973 6.2 4.9
1974 11.0 5.6 < First oil crisis
1975 9.1 8.5
1976 5.8 7.7
1977 6.5 7.1
1978 7.6 6.1
1979 11.3 5.9 < Second oil crisis
1980 13.5 7.2
1981 10.3 7.6
1982 6.2 9.7
1983 3.2 9.6
1984 4.3 7.5
In 1965, President Johnson started increasing deficit spending to fund the Vietnam war. This fiscal policy (as predicted by Keynesian theory) increased inflation and reduced unemployment. 

Unfortunately, inflation is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If business owners expect it, and raise their prices by the anticipated amount to compensate for it, then they have created the very inflation they fear. This process forms a vicious circle -- inflationary expectations and price increases feed off each other, with the potential of creating hyper-inflation. Unfortunately, economic theory at the time was such that economists didn't know how to stop it, at least safely. 

Growing inflation in the 70s received two huge boosts: the first comprised the late-1973 and 1979 oil shocks from OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Soaring oil prices compelled most American businesses to raise their prices as well, with inflationary results. The second boost to inflation came in the form of food harvest failures around the world, which created soaring prices on the world food market. Again, U.S. companies that imported food responded with an inflationary rise in their prices. 

All this was accompanied by a growing crisis in monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. Traditionally, the Fed has fought inflation by contracting the money supply, and fought unemployment by expanding it. In the 60s, the Fed conducted an expansionary policy, accepting higher inflation in return for lower unemployment. It soon became clear, however, that this strategy was flawed. Expanding the money supply created jobs because it put more money in the hands of employers and consumers, who spent it. But eventually businesses learned to expect these monetary increases, and they simply raised their prices by the anticipated amount (instead of hiring more workers). The result was that the Fed gradually lost its ability to keep down unemployment; the more money it pumped into the economy, the more businesses raised their prices. As a result, both inflation and unemployment started growing together, forming a twin monster that economist Paul Samuelson dubbed "stagflation." 

Stagflation happened to reach its peak on Carter's watch, spurred on by the 1979 oil shock. How Carter can be blamed for a trend that began a decade and a half earlier is a mystery -- and a testimony as to how presidential candidates often exploit the public's economic ignorance for their own political gain. 

However, Carter did in fact take a tremendously important step in ending stagflation. He nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation by giving the nation some bitter medicine: an intentional recession. In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system. 

The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him. 

In the late summer of 1982, inflation looked defeated, so Volcker sharply expanded the money supply. Once as high as 14 percent in 1981, the Fed's discount rate fell from 11 to 8.5 percent between August and December 1982. Within months, the economy roared to life, and took off on an expansion that would last seven years. Because the recession had been so deep, and the number of available workers so large (with not only laid-off workers waiting to return to work, but also a record number of women seeking to join the workforce), the recovery was guaranteed to be long and healthy. 

Interestingly, Volcker was transformed from villain to hero after the victory over inflation. His reputation and integrity were so unquestioned that when his term as Chairman came up for renewal, Reagan renominated him with overwhelming popular approval. Another interesting tidbit is that although Volcker's intentional recession was a classically Keynesian approach to combating inflation, he did so under the name of "monetarism". (The policies recommended by the two theories converged at this point.) Milton Friedman, the creator of monetarist theory, and other conservatives were pleased that the Fed had finally converted to monetarism. However, they were outraged in late 1982 when Volcker threw off the cloak of monetarism and openly returned to Keynesian policies for expanding the economy. Most economists now accept that the Fed was not monetarist at all during this period, and that the label was merely political cover for drastic but necessary action. 

Of course, conservatives have a far different interpretation of these events. Let's review their arguments: 

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW 

According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business. 

There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product:

Federal tax receipts and spending (percent of GDP) (2)

Year Receipts Spending
-------------------------
Carter
1978 18.5% 21.3%
1979 19.1 20.7
1980 19.6 22.3
1981 20.2 22.9
Reagan
1982 19.8 23.9
1983 18.1 24.4
1984 18.0 23.1
1985 18.5 23.9
1986 18.2 23.5
1987 19.2 22.5
1988 18.9 22.1
1989 19.2 22.1
To claim that such a minor increase could produce crippling stagflation is to ascribe to the economy an extraordinary sensitivity to taxation. Although many conservative laymen would gladly accept such a notion, it is not one entertained by serious economists. West Germany in the 1980s, for example, had a total taxation rate of 39 percent of its GDP (compared to 29 percent of combined government taxes for the U.S.), and during that decade Germany was an economic powerhouse. If even a few percentage points are the difference between Carter's stagflation and Reagan's boom years, then by all rights West Germany should have been dead. 

But that's only the general level of taxation -- what about the top rate? Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

Conservatives also criticize Carter's promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy's operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter's actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period's stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours:

Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%) (3)

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990
------------------------------------------------
United States 100% 100 100 100 100
Canada 77.1 80.1 84.2 92.8 95.5
Italy 30.8 43.9 66.4 80.9 85.5
France 36.8 46.0 61.7 80.1 85.3
Germany 32.4 49.1 61.8 77.4 81.1
United Kingdom 53.9 54.3 58.0 65.9 71.9
Japan 15.2 23.2 45.7 62.6 70.7
Furthermore, Reagan systematically slashed and burned government regulations, but individual worker productivity grew no faster in the 80s than it had during the late 70s (about 1 percent for both periods). 

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession. 

Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s:

Private investment (4)

1970 - 1979 18.6%
1980 - 1992 17.4
So there is no evidence that the conservative revisionism is true. 

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Inflation: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-U (1982-84=100), not seasonally adjusted, table CUUR0000SA0. Unemployment: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID : lfs21000000.

2. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Table 1.2 

3. Where We Stand, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, eds., and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), p. 143. 

4. Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994


----------



## Dot Com

Why rw'ers are STILL Raygun fluffers EVEN AFTER all the info that has been uncovered is beyond belief.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RKMBrown said:


> Rolling Thunder - A Marine's Vigil - YouTube



Thanks for those videos but while posting these videos here sir,dont forget to include these 4 as well of reagan,the most corrupt president we ever had AT THAT TIME.

Not of all time,just up till that point.every president since him of course has been even more evil and corrupt than he was.The next one that gets in after Obama will be worse than Obama.always will be as along as we have this corrupt two party system.our last good decent president we had since Jfk our last GREAT president,was Carter as I proved in my last post before this one..


----------



## Oldstyle

Your belief that JFK was our last "great" President speaks volumes about the ideological "blinders" that you have on in regards to Presidential history.

Of course coming from someone who thinks 9/11 is a "hoax"...what else should be expected?

Kennedy tried to abolish the CIA?  Really?  Let me guess...you're also buying into the notion that Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam but couldn't do so because his life was cut short?  People like you amuse me.  The combination of too much time on your hands and an internet filled with trillions of bytes of "information" have created a new class of EXPERTS who don't know anything but think they know everything.


----------



## Jroc

9/11 inside job said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not conspiracy theory. Not about JFK or any garbadge you want to use to bury the truth. Plain simple truth and fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional. Psychological data bolster their case: *people who harbor conspiracist thoughts are also more inclined to paranoid ideation and schizotypy, a mild form of schizophrenia.* As conspiracy theory expert Timothy Melley of Miami University has put it, these beliefs are often dismissed as the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more propaganda from the paid zionist shill troll here. these so called scholars are funded by the government and have deep ties to them,a fact this paid zionist shill troll here leaves out.and scientific america is another front for the CIA as this zionst shill here already knows.
> 
> the reagan lovers here are the delusional paanoid nuts.they wont even try and address facts changing the subject when cornered just like this zionst shill just does.instead of truying to counter my links i keep displaying,he keeps trolling the boards,dodging those facts posting an irrelevent link.
Click to expand...


Wow!.. This guy is really out there intervention is defiantly warranted


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directive 138 also was the beinning of Iran/Contra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a conspiracy theory. The secret implementation of Directive 138 was discovered by the country and Congress during the Iran/Contra hearings. The administration admitted to it. It could have led to the impeachment of Reagan but for the fact that people in his administration took the fall for him. People were convicted of perjury and other crimes to protect him.
> It's really pretty basic.  Before Reagan, no negociating or deals with terrorist groups. After Reagan came to office, negociating and deals allowed. During Reagan administration, continuous terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directive 138 also was the beinning of Iran/Contra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a conspiracy theory. The secret implementation of Directive 138 was discovered by the country and Congress during the Iran/Contra hearings. The administration admitted to it. It could have led to the impeachment of Reagan but for the fact that people in his administration took the fall for him. People were convicted of perjury and other crimes to protect him. People went to prison over it.
> It's really pretty basic.  Before Reagan, no negociating or deals with terrorist groups. After Reagan came to office, negociating and deals allowed. During Reagan administration, continuous terrorist attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah ok
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directive 138 also was the beinning of Iran/Contra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a conspiracy theory. The secret implementation of Directive 138 was discovered by the country and Congress during the Iran/Contra hearings. The administration admitted to it. It could have led to the impeachment of Reagan but for the fact that people in his administration took the fall for him. People were convicted of perjury and other crimes to protect him.
> It's really pretty basic.  Before Reagan, no negociating or deals with terrorist groups. After Reagan came to office, negociating and deals allowed. During Reagan administration, continuous terrorist attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reaganut trolls like to dismiss facts as conspiracy theories.
> 
> something our corrupt government institutions started.
> 
> They arent even aware of the facts that some of the members of congress said they did not want to impeach bastard and traiter Reagan for his crimes of Iran Contra back then because he was too much of a likeable man-"they fell for his charm that he displayed in his acting," but most of all,after having gone through watergate,they didnt want the american people to have to go through another presidential scandal feeling it would be very embarrassing to the country and to hurt our image in the world to have another scandal of this magnitue again.
> 
> Like Reagan,those congressmen were traiters as well selling  out americans and betraying them spitting on the constituion because of their love for Reagan.those bastards in congress just like reagan,can burn in hell for their traiterous sellout to the american people.
Click to expand...


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Directive 138 also was the beinning of Iran/Contra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a conspiracy theory. The secret implementation of Directive 138 was discovered by the country and Congress during the Iran/Contra hearings. The administration admitted to it. It could have led to the impeachment of Reagan but for the fact that people in his administration took the fall for him. People were convicted of perjury and other crimes to protect him.
> It's really pretty basic.  Before Reagan, no negociating or deals with terrorist groups. After Reagan came to office, negociating and deals allowed. During Reagan administration, continuous terrorist attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reaganut trolls like to dismiss facts as conspiracy theories.
> 
> something our corrupt government institutions started.
> 
> They arent even aware of the facts that some of the members of congress said they did not want to impeach bastard and traiter Reagan for his crimes of Iran Contra back then because he was too much of a likeable man-"they fell for his charm that he displayed in his acting," but most of all,after having gone through watergate,they didnt want the american people to have to go through another presidential scandal feeling it would be very embarrassing to the country and to hurt our image in the world to have another scandal of this magnitue again.
> 
> Like Reagan,those congressmen were traiters as well seelling  out americans and betraying them spitting on the constituion because of their love for Reagan.those bastards in congress just like reagan,can burn in hell for their traiterous sellout to the american people.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely bonkers! And if you're going to use traitor and traitorous that often in your disjointed rants, you should probably learn how to spell it.

Reagan


----------



## Camp

*Dec. 21, 1988 Fuck Ronald Reagan*


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> Your belief that JFK was our last "great" President speaks volumes about the ideological "blinders" that you have on in regards to Presidential history.
> 
> Of course coming from someone who thinks 9/11 is a "hoax"...what else should be expected?
> 
> Kennedy tried to abolish the CIA?  Really?  Let me guess...you're also buying into the notion that Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam but couldn't do so because his life was cut short?  People like you amuse me.  The combination of too much time on your hands and an internet filled with trillions of bytes of "information" have created a new class of EXPERTS who don't know anything but think they know everything.



your truely clueless about our real history.

you have proven that in spades. Your so ignorant about our real history you dont even know about how he tried to take steps to abolish them signing a  document that took away all their controls over CIA covert operations transferring them over from the CIA to the joint chiefs of staff in the pentagon.

there were shockwaves from CIA covert speacialists  at the time when he did that.they  were stunned and could not believe it.


He made a public statement after the bay of pigs invasion where the CIA lied to him from the very beginning all the way up to and during the invasion lying to him saying they did not need air support for the invasion.

One of his aides who was with him even said that he approached Richarld Helms in charge of the operation saying- I know you lied to me about from the beginning that you did not need air support,now tell me the truth now,do you need air support? they then lied to him again saying they did not need it.

JFK inherited the CIA'S planned bay of pigs invasion from Eisenhower.The plan they presented to Eisenhower was vastly different than the one they presented to Kennedy.

The CIA covert operation boys they thought their man Dick Nixon was going to get elected.Nixon was friendly with the CIA in the fact he ran secret covert operations for them as vice president under Eisenhower.They were so secret even Eisenhower did not know about them.

The bay of pigs invasion was designed to succeed under Nixon but to fail under Kennedy.The CIA thought after the bay of pigs invasion that Kennedy would go before the american people and use the form of plausible deniability,and tell the american people that it was an operation going on by them that he did not know about and had no knowledge of and afterwards things would be back to normal again and they would be back to their covert operations again.

He easily could have done that.Presidents do that all the time. But he did just the opposite of what they expected him to do.Instead of doing that ,he took full responsibility for it.He came forward and said he knew what was going on.That he should have done something about it but did not admitting that he screwed up.How often does a president come forward and admit to the people they screwed up? very seldom ever.

after the bay of pigs invasion,he was so infuriated with the CIA for lying to him from the very get go about the invasion,he  made a public statement that he was going to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the four winds.

He made good on that initially like I said by getting rid of all the CIA'S covert operations turning them over to the joint chiefs of staff.a fact you are obviously not aware of. once after his assassination though,that directive was abolished by Johnson and he turned the CIA covert operations back to the CIA again.Since the CIA scratched his back and killed JFK for him,he returned the favor to them giving their covert operations back to them and giving them thier war in vietnam they wanted.

Your so ignorant about the events of the kennedy assassination, our real history, and the corruption of Ronald Reagan,that you also are obviously ignorant of the fact that JFK after the bay of pigs invasion,turned around and fired CIA director Allen Dulles,deputy director Richard Bissel,and General Charles Cabell .Oh and  who incidently,his brother Earl Caball,was the major of dallas and had a hand in changing the parade route at the last minute. 

Man your incredibly brainwashed by the CIA controlled media, our corrupt government as well as our corrupt school system more than I ever imiagined.

Its a well known fact that just two months before his assassination,JFK signed a document that recalled ALL military personal by the end of 1965.that it called for a complete withdrawal by all the military personal by the end of that year.That document was discovered in the kennedy archives administration  in the 1990's through the ARRB -assassinatins records review board,a committe authorized and signed by Clinton to uncover documents from the Kennedy administration.

two days later after his assassination,they also discovered a document that Johnson signed then that REVERSED kennedys policy on vietnam calling for covert wars for the CIA to initate again.

Johnson made good on that promise with his phony gulf on tonkin incident staged in 1965.an event staged that even Robert Mcnamara and the commander of that ship have now come out and said our government and Lyndon Johnson staged. a fact,not a conspiracy theory.

For years,many independent investigaters suspected that Jfk was going to pull out of vietnam because his two closest aides Dave Powers and Kenny O'donnel told him-I may go down as the least popular president in history but i will not commit our forces to vietnam.I plan to completely withdraw us by the end of 1965,but I cannot do it until after the election when I am get reelected.

Those of course were not his exact words word for word but they did say he told them he had to wait till after his election to pull them out completely because if he did it before,he would look like he was soft on commuism to the american people so he had to make it look like he had a hard line stance against commuism and was committed to stopping them.

It was no secret among the military elite and the CIA he was going to pull out of vietnam either.documents also surfaced with headlines that read on the front pages of the militarys STARS AND STRIPES newspaper reading-Kennedy plans to withdraw all military personal by end of 1965. yep JFK did not plan to withdraw from vietnam or get rid of the CIA  alright.

Oh and I mentioned earlier how the CIA was hoping their man Nixon would get elected because of his deep ties to the CIA.Matter of fact,speaking of Nixon and his covert CIA operations he ran for them under Eisenhower as VP,for years E Howard Hunt who was the main man for the CIA in charge of covert operations for them back then,he was one of the burglers arrested in the watergate scandal.How is that tied into the JFK asssasination?

Well for years,he ran those covert CIA wars for Nixon and he was one of the main men who headed the bay of pigs invasion which is why the CIA badly wanted Nixon to get elected. well during the watergate hearings,you can hear Nixon say on those recordings-That scab Hunt is bad news.if they investigate this too much that whole bay of pigs thing will come up.

Reseachers and even his white house staff often wondered over the years why Nixon was so obsessed with the bay of pigs invasion and the reason WHY was he was referring to his role and the CIA's role in the kennedy assassination.even some of Nixons aides concluded years later when he kept saying that whole bay of pigs thing,he was talking about the kennedy assassination thing.

That was because for years many reseachers thought one of the photographs taken that day of three tramps arrested,that one of them was E Howard Hunt.For years though Hunt denied it and said he was never in dallas that day changing his story many times over the years.However about 5 years ago on his deathbed confession,his son tape recoreded him setting th record straight where he confessed he WAS in dallas that day as part of a CIA operation to kill Kennedy and Johnson used his connections to cover it up.

Oh and Nixon as well lied about his whereabouts as well  changing his story many times over the years about where he was in dallas that day.He lied denying he was in dallas that day in the days afterwards saying he was on a business trip in washington at the time.

The problem is he forgot thet very morning he was in dallas that day at a pepsi cola convention.photographs show that to be true.

Nixon,Hunt,and yes Geoege Bush sr are the only men that were alive that day who could not remember where they were.

Here is Hunts story where he implicates Nixon and Johnson.Nothing like hearing it from the horses mouth.You sir,have been taken to school.


----------



## RKMBrown

9/11 inside job said:


> Thanks for those videos but while posting these videos here sir,dont forget to include these 4 as well of reagan,the most corrupt president we ever had AT THAT TIME.
> 
> Not of all time,just up till that point.every president since him of course has been even more evil and corrupt than he was.The next one that gets in after Obama will be worse than Obama.always will be as along as we have this corrupt two party system.our last good decent president we had since Jfk our last GREAT president,was Carter as I proved in my last post before this one..



The difference between Obama and every other president we've ever had, is that Obama is the first POTUS we've ever had that hated every single thing about this country.  Obama despises us.  The feeling is mutual.  

Reagan was not perfect.  No one ever said he was.  Hell even Reagan admitted to his mistakes, said he would do some things differently.

Your attack on a dead man while you ignore what this POTUS is doing is nothing more than disingenuous deflection.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a conspiracy theory. The secret implementation of Directive 138 was discovered by the country and Congress during the Iran/Contra hearings. The administration admitted to it. It could have led to the impeachment of Reagan but for the fact that people in his administration took the fall for him. People were convicted of perjury and other crimes to protect him.
> It's really pretty basic.  Before Reagan, no negociating or deals with terrorist groups. After Reagan came to office, negociating and deals allowed. During Reagan administration, continuous terrorist attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reaganut trolls like to dismiss facts as conspiracy theories.
> 
> something our corrupt government institutions started.
> 
> They arent even aware of the facts that some of the members of congress said they did not want to impeach bastard and traiter Reagan for his crimes of Iran Contra back then because he was too much of a likeable man-"they fell for his charm that he displayed in his acting," but most of all,after having gone through watergate,they didnt want the american people to have to go through another presidential scandal feeling it would be very embarrassing to the country and to hurt our image in the world to have another scandal of this magnitue again.
> 
> Like Reagan,those congressmen were traiters as well seelling  out americans and betraying them spitting on the constituion because of their love for Reagan.those bastards in congress just like reagan,can burn in hell for their traiterous sellout to the american people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely bonkers! And if you're going to use traitor and traitorous that often in your disjointed rants, you should probably learn how to spell it.
> 
> Reagan
Click to expand...


Oh the irony.Its you reaganuts that have disjointed rants. 

thats why you Reaganut trolls always run off when confronted with links you cant refute and change the subject everytime  evading those facts in them never trying to counter them.

oh and you got reading comprehension problems,a familiar trait with your reaganuts.

Lets see,looks like i spelled it right  both times  in this sentence below. as always,you guys show you are delusional and prove you only see what you WANT to see.

Like Reagan,those congressmen were traiters as well selling  out americans and betraying them spitting on the constituion because of their love for Reagan


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RKMBrown said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for those videos but while posting these videos here sir,dont forget to include these 4 as well of reagan,the most corrupt president we ever had AT THAT TIME.
> 
> Not of all time,just up till that point.every president since him of course has been even more evil and corrupt than he was.The next one that gets in after Obama will be worse than Obama.always will be as along as we have this corrupt two party system.our last good decent president we had since Jfk our last GREAT president,was Carter as I proved in my last post before this one..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between Obama and every other president we've ever had, is that Obama is the first POTUS we've ever had that hated every single thing about this country.  Obama despises us.  The feeling is mutual.
> 
> Reagan was not perfect.  No one ever said he was.  Hell even Reagan admitted to his mistakes, said he would do some things differently.
> 
> Your attack on a dead man while you ignore what this POTUS is doing is nothing more than disingenuous deflection.
Click to expand...


the Irony of deflection why is it that you reaganuts always evade the facts of the corruption of reagan and how he was a traiter to the american people by ALWAYS bringing up how Obama has betrayed the nation as well?

as Camp said earlier,this thread isnt about Obamas corruption,its about Reagans. And what part of that post did you not get where I made it perfectly clear I am not arguing that Obama is the most corrupt president ever? 

I thought I made it perfctly clear in that post,that with the exception of carter,every president since Jfk, our last real president despite crusader retards lies in his avatar,has been more evil and corrupt than the previous one? 

yes Obama is the most corrupt president ever NOW. But were not talking about now,were talking about back then when Reagan was president whom at that time,ran the most corrupt administration ever.

saying you want to do things differently doesnt cut the mustard and doesnt disprove that you are a traiter and murderous scumbag either.


----------



## Oldstyle

So JFK makes a deal with organized crime in order to get elected...but HE'S your paragon of virtue?


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> So JFK makes a deal with organized crime in order to get elected...but HE'S your paragon of virtue?



All politicians make deals to get elected. Your county council rep's make deals and every elected official between them and the President makes deals.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> So JFK makes a deal with organized crime in order to get elected...but HE'S your paragon of virtue?



Evading the facts when proven  wrong as always I see changing the subject not addressing them.

and since you want to evade my facts and change the subject,his father made the deal fool.His father was the one that used his mob connections and close ties in chicago to get him elected.and so what,even if he knew about it as well at least he did the right thing and double crossed doing what other presidents before him could not do,go  after them tooth and nail with Bobby leading the charge with an all out war agains the mob,not just prosecuting the low level men,but the big fish deporting Santos Trafficante and putting Jimmy Hoffa behind jail.

Soon as Dick Nixon "who had long standing ties to the mob" got elected,he pardoned Hoffa and got him out of jail letting the run amok again.

oh and I notice how everytime i ask the question to you,meathead brain,and zionist shill jroc,that its funny that it seems you would want to tell crusader retard to shut up in his lunatic ramblings about Reagan,that you would want to distance yourself from him  because he has the same agreements with me about 9/11 and Bush sr being involved in the JFK assassination,you all evade that point and wont answer it just like you wont answer all my links that prove reagan was a traiter to the american people.

that I can never get an answer from any of you on that.

JFK unlike Reagan,at least TRIED to do the right thing and abolish the CIA and pull us out of the vietnam war. that to me is being a true patriot.He had some flaws like all people do,but he at least tried to do the right thing.

you trolls as always,evade the fact i have posted over a 100 times here that carter,like jfk,ALSO tried to get rid of the CIA while president firing Bush sr replacing him with Stansfield Turner who then cleaned house firing many covert specialits in the CIA,reforming the CIA and then Reagan gets in,fires Turner,and replaces him with William Casey who then gets the CIA back to its old dirty tricks of covert CIA operations again.


you trolls cowardly run off from that fact EVERYTIME.

This is the kind of man William Casey  whom Reagan appointed as new CIA director was.These are not my words,these are the words Casey himself spoke.

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
William Casey


----------



## LA RAM FAN

oh and her is the proof in the pudding that the CIA is the reason the world is in the mess that it is today.you fools again,have been brainwashed by the CIA controlled media.

as you can see from this link,Truman himself admitted he made a mistake in creating the CIA.He once said it was the worst mistake he ever made as president.Oh and as you can see,jfk really DID say he was going to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces which he did take action to implement in his short term in office.

&#8220;I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo.&#8221;
&#8211; Harry S. Truman 

If the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts.&#8221;
&#8211; George H. W. Bush

Hey Bush sr CONFESSING here how evil he is,what do you you know?


&#8221; I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.&#8221;
&#8211; John F. Kennedy

CIA Admits Using MSM To Manipulate The USA (Video)


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, keep digging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridicule this one. Oct. 23, 1983
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Conspiracy theorys can be challanged and debunked. Is there anything in this comment that can be challanged and debunked, or is it just a question of who wants to forgive the asshole and who doesn't.?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theorys can be challanged and debunked. Is there anything in this comment that can be challanged and debunked, or is it just a question of who wants to forgive the asshole and who doesn't.?
Click to expand...


one conspiracy THOERY that can be challenged and debunked is the governments theory that 19 muslins were behind 9/11. thats a different story for another thread  for another time though.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theorys can be challanged and debunked. Is there anything in this comment that can be challanged and debunked, or is it just a question of who wants to forgive the asshole and who doesn't.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one conspiracy THOERY that can be challenged and debunked is the governments theory that 19 muslins were behind 9/11. thats a different story for another thread  for another time though.
Click to expand...


Thanks


----------



## PrometheusBound

Oldstyle said:


> Your belief that JFK was our last "great" President speaks volumes about the ideological "blinders" that you have on in regards to Presidential history.
> 
> Of course coming from someone who thinks 9/11 is a "hoax"...what else should be expected?
> 
> Kennedy tried to abolish the CIA?  Really?  Let me guess...you're also buying into the notion that Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam but couldn't do so because his life was cut short?  People like you amuse me.  The combination of too much time on your hands and an internet filled with trillions of bytes of "information" have created a new class of EXPERTS who don't know anything but think they know everything.



Blinded by the tinsel charisma of their loose-cannon father figure, they were easily suckered into making him into the world's perfect man.  Camelot was camel dung.


----------



## Camp

PrometheusBound said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your belief that JFK was our last "great" President speaks volumes about the ideological "blinders" that you have on in regards to Presidential history.
> 
> Of course coming from someone who thinks 9/11 is a "hoax"...what else should be expected?
> 
> Kennedy tried to abolish the CIA?  Really?  Let me guess...you're also buying into the notion that Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam but couldn't do so because his life was cut short?  People like you amuse me.  The combination of too much time on your hands and an internet filled with trillions of bytes of "information" have created a new class of EXPERTS who don't know anything but think they know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blinded by the tinsel charisma of their loose-cannon father figure, they were easily suckered into making him into the world's perfect man.  Camelot was camel dung.
Click to expand...


You keep trying to devert attention away from the topic of the OP and thread. Ronald Reagan and how revisionist have attempted to rewrite his legacy. His history and involvement in creating modern day terrorism is without question and you can not defend it. I have given date after date of terrorist attacks during his time as commander if chief. I gave the specific Directive that he implemented that allowed a secret government operation out of the White House that negociated and made deals with terrorist. It is a famous Directive that was revealed in open sessions of Congress on live TV and written about by every news organization in the world. How do you defend it? What is it that you can challange or make an attempt to debunk? Nothing.  You got nothing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagans legacy is and always will be liberating hundreds of millions from Soviet Communism


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your belief that JFK was our last "great" President speaks volumes about the ideological "blinders" that you have on in regards to Presidential history.
> 
> Of course coming from someone who thinks 9/11 is a "hoax"...what else should be expected?
> 
> Kennedy tried to abolish the CIA?  Really?  Let me guess...you're also buying into the notion that Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam but couldn't do so because his life was cut short?  People like you amuse me.  The combination of too much time on your hands and an internet filled with trillions of bytes of "information" have created a new class of EXPERTS who don't know anything but think they know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blinded by the tinsel charisma of their loose-cannon father figure, they were easily suckered into making him into the world's perfect man.  Camelot was camel dung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to devert attention away from the topic of the OP and thread. Ronald Reagan and how revisionist have attempted to rewrite his legacy. His history and involvement in creating modern day terrorism is without question and you can not defend it. I have given date after date of terrorist attacks during his time as commander if chief. I gave the specific Directive that he implemented that allowed a secret government operation out of the White House that negociated and made deals with terrorist. It is a famous Directive that was revealed in open sessions of Congress on live TV and written about by every news organization in the world. How do you defend it? What is it that you can challange or make an attempt to debunk? Nothing.  You got nothing.
Click to expand...




everyone of the reaganuts has done exactly that.come on here and try to divert attention away from the topic of the OP and thread evading the facts never trying to debunk them in the links I post or in your case,the dates, constantly  changing the subject everytime talking about the corruption of Obama and then refusing to answer questions you pose them as well.


----------



## RKMBrown

9/11 have you been a retard your whole life?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan never wanted Bush as his running mate. Reagan knew Bush was a scumbag and likely meant that the Republican Establishment was going to assassinate him, but they gave him no choice: it was either take Bush or we'll ruin you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

RKMBrown said:


> 9/11 have you been a retard your whole life?



you reaganuts are so predictable.as always when you are cornered by all these  pesky facts I have posted throughout this whole thread,instead of addressing them in those links I posted,you all either change the subject like camp just got done saying,or you get frustrated and then start trolling the boards.

excellent rebutall to all those facts I just posted.you sure showed me.

till your ready to actually discuss them,then not going to go any further with you since your obviously only capapble of doing the meathead meatbrain thing,coming back with oneliners when cornered.

Reaganuts  are so easy to predict.evade,evade,evade,the truth hurts.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet posting shit that means nothing you ignorant toad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the  families of the 241 Marines killed on that day by a terrorist driving a bomb filled truck into their barracks. Tell that to the families of the 13 who died later from injuries. Tell it to the Marines who still have nightmares because they watched the terrorist approach as they held weapons that were ordered to be unloaded and thus useless to stop the terrorist.
> Under the command of Ronald Reagan Marines were posted to a war zone and ordered to carry and protect themselve and each other with unloaded weapons. Fuck Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conspiracy theorys can be challanged and debunked. Is there anything in this comment that can be challanged and debunked, or is it just a question of who wants to forgive the asshole and who doesn't.?
Click to expand...


Yeah that's what you get for trying to work with the U.N. on anything. Fuck the U.N. and fuck the muslim nut jobs


----------



## gipper

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan never wanted Bush as his running mate. Reagan knew Bush was a scumbag and likely meant that the Republican Establishment was going to assassinate him, but they gave him no choice: it was either take Bush or we'll ruin you.



Yes.  Accepting HW as VP was one of Reagan's biggest mistakes.  It not only allowed the elitist HW to win easily in '88, on Reagan's coat tails, it allowed his elitist and progressive fool of a son, to win the WH TWICE!!!  

Sad....very sad.

Can you imagine the horror if another HW son wins the WH?  God forbid!!!  That would quadruple Reagan's mistake in picking HW...who was a CIA tool, with shady ties to the JFK coup d'état.

If you were to define the words Statist and Elitist by using a person's name...that name would be BUSH....but it would also be Clinton, Gore, Cheney, Romney, Big Ears....ops Obama, etc....................................

Are we fucked or what?


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan never wanted Bush as his running mate. Reagan knew Bush was a scumbag and likely meant that the Republican Establishment was going to assassinate him, but they gave him no choice: it was either take Bush or we'll ruin you.



you mean the establishment-types wanted to keep the status quo and saw the gipper as a threat to ending the taxpayer-financed never-ending buffet in D.C.?


----------



## MaryL

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own&#8212;a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent events&#8212;Reagan&#8217;s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get &#8220;soft&#8221; officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of &#8220;moral disarmament&#8221; and Safire mocking Reagan&#8217;s rapport with Gorbachev: &#8220;He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev&#8217;s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.&#8221; It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


Americans are becoming soft on morality and they have lost their historical perspective...What else can  be said? Gay rights or rights for illegal aliens, phhhph! Are you kidding me? No? That is what AMERICA has come to. We stand for...nothing, NOTHING. Sad to say.


----------



## RKMBrown

MaryL said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own&#8212;a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent events&#8212;Reagan&#8217;s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get &#8220;soft&#8221; officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of &#8220;moral disarmament&#8221; and Safire mocking Reagan&#8217;s rapport with Gorbachev: &#8220;He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev&#8217;s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.&#8221; It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans are becoming soft on morality and they have lost their historical perspective...What else can  be said? Gay rights or rights for illegal aliens, phhhph! Are you kidding me? No? That is what AMERICA has come to. We stand for...nothing in this country now, NOTHING.
Click to expand...


Screw you asshole. This country was built by immigrants. And gays? Wtf do you have against American gays? I bet you're a pansy.


----------



## MaryL

RKMBrown said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are becoming soft on morality and they have lost their historical perspective...What else can  be said? Gay rights or rights for illegal aliens, phhhph! Are you kidding me? No? That is what AMERICA has come to. We stand for...nothing in this country now, NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw you asshole. This country was built by immigrants. And gays? Wtf do you have against American gays? I bet you're a pansy.
Click to expand...


Subtle.  I am at a  loss here. I don't have to like gays or people that pretend to be something OTHER than what they are truly are, posers. Can't stand those  jerks. You? Like lairs  and phonies?   Gays and Mexicans, phonies up the yingyang.What can I  say?


----------



## RKMBrown

MaryL said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are becoming soft on morality and they have lost their historical perspective...What else can  be said? Gay rights or rights for illegal aliens, phhhph! Are you kidding me? No? That is what AMERICA has come to. We stand for...nothing in this country now, NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screw you asshole. This country was built by immigrants. And gays? Wtf do you have against American gays? I bet you're a pansy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subtle.  I am at a  loss here. I don't have to like gays or people that pretend to be something OTHER than what they are truly are, posers. Can't stand those  jerks. You? Like lairs  and phonies?   Gays and Mexicans, phonies up the yingyang&#8230;.What can I  say?
Click to expand...

What do gay folk and Mexicans here in America have to do with liars, posers, and phonies up the ying of the yang? You don't like my gay brother in law, why don't you walk into a gay bar and tell em all.  You don't like Hispanic folk, why don't you walk into a hispanic bar and tell them.  I don't believe you have the guts to do more than spew your racist homophobic rants on the interweb. Why don't you prove your manhood and send us all photos.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

There's always a grain of truth in every CIA cover story. They started the  Fake Moon Landing story to cover what was actually happening on the moon missions. 

They started the Bush took an SR71 Blackbird to Tehran story to cover that the CIA was behind the embassy siege in the first place. Bush never had to go to Tehran to give the order to end the siege.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your belief that JFK was our last "great" President speaks volumes about the ideological "blinders" that you have on in regards to Presidential history.
> 
> Of course coming from someone who thinks 9/11 is a "hoax"...what else should be expected?
> 
> Kennedy tried to abolish the CIA?  Really?  Let me guess...you're also buying into the notion that Kennedy intended to get us out of Vietnam but couldn't do so because his life was cut short?  People like you amuse me.  The combination of too much time on your hands and an internet filled with trillions of bytes of "information" have created a new class of EXPERTS who don't know anything but think they know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blinded by the tinsel charisma of their loose-cannon father figure, they were easily suckered into making him into the world's perfect man.  Camelot was camel dung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to devert attention away from the topic of the OP and thread. Ronald Reagan and how revisionist have attempted to rewrite his legacy. His history and involvement in creating modern day terrorism is without question and you can not defend it. I have given date after date of terrorist attacks during his time as commander if chief. I gave the specific Directive that he implemented that allowed a secret government operation out of the White House that negociated and made deals with terrorist. It is a famous Directive that was revealed in open sessions of Congress on live TV and written about by every news organization in the world. How do you defend it? What is it that you can challange or make an attempt to debunk? Nothing.  You got nothing.
Click to expand...


You only listen to what the criminal ruling class of thieves and traitors tells you in their controlled media, including this copycat Internet.  Nixon got terrorism financed when he refused to follow through on his plan to seize the Arab oilfields because of the Embargo, which is the same legitimate reason for declaring war that the Japanese used after FDR did it to them.  The media's moronic hirelings have suckered you into thinking that this is a war about terrorism or religion.  I don't care what we do or don't do to terrorists, because they are only a Special Forces unit of the OPEC jihad.  Take away their oil and they'll be fighting us with sticks and stones.


----------



## PrometheusBound

MaryL said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans are becoming soft on morality and they have lost their historical perspective...What else can  be said? Gay rights or rights for illegal aliens, phhhph! Are you kidding me? No? That is what AMERICA has come to. We stand for...nothing, NOTHING. Sad to say.
Click to expand...


Also, no one has a right to a dime of his Daddy's money or to any benefit from Daddy's connections.  If we have to do it on our own, so must the spoiled-rotten spawn of the rich.  Or they must die.


----------



## PrometheusBound

CrusaderFrank said:


> There's always a grain of truth in every CIA cover story. They started the  Fake Moon Landing story to cover what was actually happening on the moon missions.
> 
> They started the Bush took an SR71 Blackbird to Tehran story to cover that the CIA was behind the embassy siege in the first place. Bush never had to go to Tehran to give the order to end the siege.



I'm glad you're advanced enough to realize that Conspiracy Theories are plants by the guillotine-fodder 1%.   But I still stand by my analysis, that the Iranians were told through back door channels that if Reagan got elected, he would destroy their country if they didn't release their hostages.  Notice that he didn't say if he would destroy their country anyway even if they did release their hostages.  I like dealing like that.


----------



## PrometheusBound

The way Reagan double-crossed the Iranian scum by siccing Saddam on them was his way of "negotiating."

Before the Hug a Thug ACLU cult handcuffed them, the Texas Rangers reported that 95% of their prisoners were "killed trying to escape."  They'd even put a rope around a bandito's neck, telling him they'd let him go if he told where his gang was holed up.  But even if he did snitch, they'd hang him anyway.


----------



## Camp

What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.



You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
Click to expand...


No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.

"We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?

Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan took a bullet from Bush and the GOP establishment and he's the one who's evil

LOL

Nigga, please!


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan took a bullet from Bush and the GOP establishment and he's the one who's evil
> 
> LOL
> 
> Nigga, please!



How did Reagan take the bullet for Bush? And who said he was evil?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan took a bullet from Bush and the GOP establishment and he's the one who's evil
> 
> LOL
> 
> Nigga, please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Reagan take the bullet for Bush? And who said he was evil?
Click to expand...


From... I said from Bush.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan took a bullet from Bush and the GOP establishment and he's the one who's evil
> 
> LOL
> 
> Nigga, please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Reagan take the bullet for Bush? And who said he was evil?
Click to expand...


comedy gold from crusader retard as always. I almost fell out of my chair in his comedy routine saying reagan took the bullet for Bush. Never did I ever say that Bush and the GOP establishment were not evil as well.comedy gold from crusader retard as always.

btw,obviously you have only been reading PARTS of my posts on this thread just like the reaganuts have because i have told the truth MANY times posting facts here that they all never took the time to read proving that reagan was evil.I knew the reaganuts werent reading my entire  posts or the links i posted,but i had hoped that the objective minded people like yourself at least  were.

every single president since reagan COUNTING reagan,despite what reagans distant cousin crusader retard says,has been an evil corrupt bastard.that carter was our last president who WASNT evil.I have said that here MILLIONS of times.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan took a bullet from Bush and the GOP establishment and he's the one who's evil
> 
> LOL
> 
> Nigga, please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Reagan take the bullet for Bush? And who said he was evil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> comedy gold from crusader retard as always. I almost fell out of my chair in his comedy routine saying reagan took the bullet for Bush. Never did I ever say that Bush and the GOP establishment were not evil as well.comedy gold from crusader retard as always.
> 
> btw,obviously you have only been reading PARTS of my posts on this thread just like the reaganuts have because i have told the truth MANY times posting facts here that they all never took the time to read proving that reagan was evil.I knew the reaganuts werent reading my entire  posts or the links i posted,but i had hoped that the objective minded people like yourself at least  were.
> 
> every single president since reagan COUNTING reagan,despite what reagans distant cousin crusader retard says,has been an evil corrupt bastard.that carter was our last president who WASNT evil.I have said that here MILLIONS of times.
Click to expand...


I did not see a post where you specificly referenced Reagan as evil. Bush, yes, but not Reagan. And I thought Frank was referencing me.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Anyone who thinks Reagan was solely responsible for any increase in terrorism is delusion and you are surely that. I think you're full of crap, sitting in your room, on your computer obsessing with your stupidity


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Ya, sure Jroc, but you won't talk about what happened on Dec. 21, 1988. You made a claim that Reagan bombed Kadafi and we didn't  hear from him for 25 years and maybe you looked up the date and found out what happened and maybe you didn't. My comments about you stand unless you can respond with something other than attempts at insults.


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
Click to expand...


Do you actually believe an Arab leader of a muslim country would not seek retribution and revenge for the killing of his daughter? Reagan didn't seem to have much of a knowledge base in regards to Arab culture.


----------



## thanatos144

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks Reagan was solely responsible for any increase in terrorism is delusion and you are surely that. I think you're full of crap, sitting in your room, on your computer obsessing with your stupidity
Click to expand...


They are America hating apologists.... They see conspiracy everywhere because they refuse to believe people hate us for not being Muslim or for being free.


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waLJii_RrXs]President Reagan: Speech on Airstrikes Against Libya, April 14, 1986 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Papageorgio

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...


Speaking of lies, weren't you the dumb son do a bitch that lied earlier in another thread about veterans losing benefits during the shutdown. 

Do you ever get confused when you fucking lie all the time?


----------



## Camp

Papageorgio said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of lies, weren't you the dumb son do a bitch that lied earlier in another thread about veterans losing benefits during the shutdown.
> 
> Do you ever get confused when you fucking lie all the time?
Click to expand...


When you can't make an arguement, attack the messenger.
Show how anything I said about Reagan and his policies in regards to terrorism is a lie or a mistake.


----------



## Meathead

We got it already! Reagan helped topple the Soviet Union and marginalized the far left for a generation and you're whining about it. That's not going to change history, so get over it ffs!


----------



## bendog

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan never wanted Bush as his running mate. Reagan knew Bush was a scumbag and likely meant that the Republican Establishment was going to assassinate him, but they gave him no choice: it was either take Bush or we'll ruin you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you mean the establishment-types wanted to keep the status quo and saw the gipper as a threat to ending the taxpayer-financed never-ending buffet in D.C.?
Click to expand...


It's a common Reagan myth.  Reagan knew he needed to reach out to the "old" group.  He initially approached Gerry Ford, but for a variety of reasons settled on BushI.  Reagan went on to raise taxes something like six times, all the while reducing marginal rates.  But, when BushI proposes actually paying for the savings and loan bailout and keeping interest rates low, the gop abandoned him.  

Reagan was a great potus, but aside from being a great leader and motivator, his one signature policy achievement was pushing private market efficiency.  That policy has morphed into the notion that govt has no role in markets ... which is different from policing markets to reduce manipulation and creating inefficiency for profit.


----------



## PrometheusBound

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan took a bullet from Bush and the GOP establishment and he's the one who's evil
> 
> LOL
> 
> Nigga, please!



Heirheads are spoiled rotten and obsessed with their Daddies, because they all know perfectly well that they'd be nobodies without Daddy's money and connections.  John Hinckley's father was the CEO of an oil company.

Reagan intimidated OPEC into lowering prices, which are completely arbitrary, despite what our self-interested Greedheads preach about their imaginary free market.  These Bizz 
Skule graduates are dumb jock bullies, so it's impossible that they were smart enough to organize an assassination plot.   However, it is possible that Johnny overheard his father complaining about Reagan interfering with the petrocrats' fixed market and shot Reagan in order to get his father to love him.  That psychotic behavior is not unusual for Heirhead scum.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about how the the policies of Ronald Reagan that allowed bargaining with terrorist led to the growth of terrorism and terrorismto be an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. I have not even mentioned how the terrorism issue changed from terrorist groups to actual terrorist acts by groups supported by nations, to actual terrorist acts carried out by a nation, Libya. Reagan's ineptitude led to an actual country, Libya to launch terrorist attacts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...




He wont.He knows how evil and corrupt reagan was.Your wasting your breath on this troll.He knows everything we been saying about reagan is the truth.

He is a paid zionist shill sent here by his handlers to post propaganda and lies and derail any kind of truth discussion on government corruption and presidents.He is so stupid he doesnt even try and hide it,he advertises that fact with his avatar.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks Reagan was solely responsible for any increase in terrorism is delusion and you are surely that. I think you're full of crap, sitting in your room, on your computer obsessing with your stupidity
Click to expand...


He used Saddam Hussein (no relation to BHO) to flatten Iran and set back their terrorist campaign 20 years.  He put the Fear of God in Allah-loving Khadaffy (not related to Daffy Duck).   By putting price controls on OPEC, which is the sole sponsor of terrorism, Reagan defunded their Nazislami agents.  Nice piece of work, when all this time he was putting the screws on the Soviet Union too.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Reagan take the bullet for Bush? And who said he was evil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comedy gold from crusader retard as always. I almost fell out of my chair in his comedy routine saying reagan took the bullet for Bush. Never did I ever say that Bush and the GOP establishment were not evil as well.comedy gold from crusader retard as always.
> 
> btw,obviously you have only been reading PARTS of my posts on this thread just like the reaganuts have because i have told the truth MANY times posting facts here that they all never took the time to read proving that reagan was evil.I knew the reaganuts werent reading my entire  posts or the links i posted,but i had hoped that the objective minded people like yourself at least  were.
> 
> every single president since reagan COUNTING reagan,despite what reagans distant cousin crusader retard says,has been an evil corrupt bastard.that carter was our last president who WASNT evil.I have said that here MILLIONS of times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not see a post where you specificly referenced Reagan as evil. Bush, yes, but not Reagan. And I thought Frank was referencing me.
Click to expand...


Ive made several posts here where I said Reagan was evil and posted many links on here that prove it.Not going to post them again,if you have any interest in the truth on how evil and corrupt reagan is,you can go back and read those links and see for yourself.If you dont want to,well thats your decison.i can only lead a horse to the water but i cant make him drink it.thats what all these reaganuts here wont do after i lead them to the water,refuse to drink it cause the truth-the water, scares them.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're delusional and we heard nothing out of Kadafi for 25 yrs after Reagan bombed his house
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, sure Jroc, but you won't talk about what happened on Dec. 21, 1988. You made a claim that Reagan bombed Kadafi and we didn't  hear from him for 25 years and maybe you looked up the date and found out what happened and maybe you didn't. My comments about you stand unless you can respond with something other than attempts at insults.
Click to expand...


You really get a pleasure out of making us spend time, at your bidding, looking up your magic dates when you could easily tell us what happened.  

Here's two for you:  September 11, 1683  and February 23, 1973.  Get on it, slave!  It's so nice to see people jump when I say jump!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of lies, weren't you the dumb son do a bitch that lied earlier in another thread about veterans losing benefits during the shutdown.
> 
> Do you ever get confused when you fucking lie all the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can't make an arguement, attack the messenger.
> Show how anything I said about Reagan and his policies in regards to terrorism is a lie or a mistake.
Click to expand...


the reaganuts have demonstrated in spades they cant stand toe to toe in a debate.They would be laughed out of a debating hall withing one minute if they debated there the same way they do here.you got to actually try and counter the facts your opponent presents when he gives you links.you cant just dismiss them and say your lying and claim you won.

Thye know they cant counter and refute your facts,so to fell good about themselves,they get desperate and shoot the messenger with insults when they get frustrated by pesky facts that corner them.


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks Reagan was solely responsible for any increase in terrorism is delusion and you are surely that. I think you're full of crap, sitting in your room, on your computer obsessing with your stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are America hating apologists.... They see conspiracy everywhere because they refuse to believe people hate us for not being Muslim or for being free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's your compassion for Truthies?   Before getting into their cults, they were lonely and had no friends.   Now, for the first time in their lives they found a place where they feel like they belong.   And such Dhimmis also feel powerful, as witnessed by their bossy insistence that the rest of us are all idiots.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Im going to try and get an answer ONE LAST TIME on this question for paid zionist shill Jroc or meatbrain which I have asked at LEAST twice here but never got an answer from.one of many posts they evaded.

whatever you say zionist paid shill troll.

Kinda like your lover fellow troll frank is who agrees with me that 9/11 was an inside job and Bush sr was involved in the JFK assassination yet you side with this relative idiot of Reagans about this issue.

as i told meathead brain,seems to me you would want to distance yourself away from that idiot.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of lies, weren't you the dumb son do a bitch that lied earlier in another thread about veterans losing benefits during the shutdown.
> 
> Do you ever get confused when you fucking lie all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't make an arguement, attack the messenger.
> Show how anything I said about Reagan and his policies in regards to terrorism is a lie or a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the reaganuts have demonstrated in spades they cant stand toe to toe in a debate.They would be laughed out of a debating hall withing one minute if they debated there the same way they do here.you got to actually try and counter the facts your opponent presents when he gives you links.you cant just dismiss them and say your lying and claim you won.
> 
> Thye know they cant counter and refute your facts,so to fell good about themselves,they get desperate and shoot the messenger with insults when they get frustrated by pesky facts that corner them.
Click to expand...


You *really* want to debate facts?  If so I'd be happy to oblige...but if you think that posting nonsense from the sites you've provided here constitutes an "argument" that would stand up in a debate hall then I'm sorry but you're delusional.

And anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job or that Bush I was behind the JFK assassination has no business in a real debate anyways.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't make an arguement, attack the messenger.
> Show how anything I said about Reagan and his policies in regards to terrorism is a lie or a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reaganuts have demonstrated in spades they cant stand toe to toe in a debate.They would be laughed out of a debating hall withing one minute if they debated there the same way they do here.you got to actually try and counter the facts your opponent presents when he gives you links.you cant just dismiss them and say your lying and claim you won.
> 
> Thye know they cant counter and refute your facts,so to fell good about themselves,they get desperate and shoot the messenger with insults when they get frustrated by pesky facts that corner them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You *really* want to debate facts?  If so I'd be happy to oblige...but if you think that posting nonsense from the sites you've provided here constitutes an "argument" that would stand up in a debate hall then I'm sorry but you're delusional.
Click to expand...


thats why you ran off with your tail between your legs when i took you to school that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam and LBJ reversed his policy and the CIA controls the media.

comedy gold from you Reagan worshipping trolls as always.

the problem with your lies is that those facts are backed up by sources that quoted them all.Dante in his opening post referred you trolls to the book that documents how he did not end the cold war and that unemployment was MUCH worse under reagan than carter which i have read and that book uses sources from BACK THEN to document it all,oh and i was there so i know his sources he uses are true as well idiot.


you lost your credibility running off from those facts i used that proved jfk was going to get rid of the CIA,pull out of vietnam,that hey killed him,and they control the major media you also wont anser that question either i just got done asking for the tird time here,why you listen to crusader idiot when HE agrees with me about 9/11 being an inside job and that the CIA killed JFK? YOU TROLLS KEEP PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THAT QUESTION.


----------



## Camp

PrometheusBound said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are the one that is delusional. Delusional, uninformed, propagandized and brainwashed.  Reagan bombed Libya after the La Belle Disco bombing on April 5, 1986. He managed to kill the dictators infant daughter in the process. It was a token and symbolic strike that only pissed the dictator off and made him vow revenge. He mocked Reagan as he promised Reagan he would make America suffer for the murder of his daughter.
> 
> "We heard nothing from Kadafi for 25 years after Reagan bombed his house". Thats your dumb ass claim?
> 
> Look up this date you silly fool.  Dec. 21, 1988. Kadafi's Christmas present to Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, sure Jroc, but you won't talk about what happened on Dec. 21, 1988. You made a claim that Reagan bombed Kadafi and we didn't  hear from him for 25 years and maybe you looked up the date and found out what happened and maybe you didn't. My comments about you stand unless you can respond with something other than attempts at insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really get a pleasure out of making us spend time, at your bidding, looking up your magic dates when you could easily tell us what happened.
> 
> Here's two for you:  September 11, 1683  and February 23, 1973.  Get on it, slave!  It's so nice to see people jump when I say jump!
Click to expand...


If searching for Dec. 21, 1988 doesn't take you directly to Lockerbie bombing PAN AM FLIGHT 103 you need to find a new way to search. Take your pick or sources. Doesn't matter if it is LW, RW foriegn or domestic. Facts about it are not in dispute.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reaganuts have demonstrated in spades they cant stand toe to toe in a debate.They would be laughed out of a debating hall withing one minute if they debated there the same way they do here.you got to actually try and counter the facts your opponent presents when he gives you links.you cant just dismiss them and say your lying and claim you won.
> 
> Thye know they cant counter and refute your facts,so to fell good about themselves,they get desperate and shoot the messenger with insults when they get frustrated by pesky facts that corner them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You *really* want to debate facts?  If so I'd be happy to oblige...but if you think that posting nonsense from the sites you've provided here constitutes an "argument" that would stand up in a debate hall then I'm sorry but you're delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats why you ran off with your tail between your legs when i took you to school that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam and LBJ reversed his policy and the CIA controls the media.
> 
> comedy gold from you Reagan worshipping trolls as always.
> 
> the problem with your lies is that those facts are backed up by sources that quoted them all.Dante in his opening post referred you trolls to the book that documents how he did not end the cold war and that unemployment was MUCH worse under reagan than carter which i have read and that book uses sources from BACK THEN to document it all,oh and i was there so i know his sources he uses are true as well idiot.
> 
> 
> you lost your credibility running off from those facts i used that proved jfk was going to get rid of the CIA,pull out of vietnam,that hey killed him,and they control the major media you also wont anser that question either i just got done asking for the tird time here,why you listen to crusader idiot when HE agrees with me about 9/11 being an inside job and that the CIA killed JFK? YOU TROLLS KEEP PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THAT QUESTION.
Click to expand...


3 minutes later i made this post asking for an answer to my question i just posed and  have now asked 4 times and STILL no answer. and i see Oldstyle did the same thing as last time when i pointed out his ignorance on the jfk assassination and how the CIA controls the media as well.Just like last time,he runs off with his tail between his legs like the chickenhot coward he is knowing he is cornered.a common trait with the reaganuts.

the problem with the reaganuts pathetic ramblings that reagan rescued the economy and their lies that it was in shambles under carter,is that those two books dante referred to in his opening post-Tearing down they myth and Reagan,the man who sold the world that I have read unlike the reaganuts here ,is those two books  have referrences and actual sources of the media making all those announcements back then in that timeframe of the eightys with actual headlines form newspapers back then proving that my links are true that reagan betrayed the middle and lower class familys shipping jobs overseas.

Pesky facts like that from actual real sources printed back then in newspapers  at that time is something the reaganuts cant and wont face.

oh and there were actual polls taken back then as well published in the mainstream newspapers that reagans popularity was low the majority of the time as well which proves oldstyle and crusader retard are hypocrites since they use the NET as their sources which they criticise me for.  as always,the truth hurts them. I ONLY use reliable links like th eones i have been using because hypocrites lie oldstyle and crusader retard have been using the NET for their claims.

they wont read those two books i listed and dante referred everyone to in his opening post since they have pesky facts they cant refute.

I talked to dante about this and he told the truth,the people that lives through the reagan years like me and him do remember how disastrerous they really were.How he betrayed the middle and lower class familys. I for one even remember running into a bunch of people all the time back in those days with them talking about how they were unemployed thanks to reagan shipping their  factory jobs overseas which happend all over america.


the ones that say they lived through it and defend him are lying trolls. again actual newspapers back then printed all these figures which proves dante is telling the truth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> Why do conservatives pick the Gipper, of all Repub President's in the 20th century to choose from, to idolize



Because they have been brainwashed and conditioned  by the CIA controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh is why.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> The last decent Repub Prez I can think of is TR.



Your close Dot Com.actually the last decent Republican president we had,you DO have to go way way way far back to find one,you're right about that,but you dont have to go quite as far to TR to find the last decent republican president we had though,almost but not quite that far.

Actually the last decent republican president we had was actually Calvin Coolidge. But you were very close though. Coolidge also was a decent  president  as well.very close.well said. Cooolide was pretty good.a decent guy who served the people and followed the constitution instead of serving wall street and the bankers like every president since Hoover has done with the exception of Kennedy of course.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reaganuts have demonstrated in spades they cant stand toe to toe in a debate.They would be laughed out of a debating hall withing one minute if they debated there the same way they do here.you got to actually try and counter the facts your opponent presents when he gives you links.you cant just dismiss them and say your lying and claim you won.
> 
> Thye know they cant counter and refute your facts,so to fell good about themselves,they get desperate and shoot the messenger with insults when they get frustrated by pesky facts that corner them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You *really* want to debate facts?  If so I'd be happy to oblige...but if you think that posting nonsense from the sites you've provided here constitutes an "argument" that would stand up in a debate hall then I'm sorry but you're delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats why you ran off with your tail between your legs when i took you to school that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam and LBJ reversed his policy and the CIA controls the media.
> 
> comedy gold from you Reagan worshipping trolls as always.
> 
> the problem with your lies is that those facts are backed up by sources that quoted them all.Dante in his opening post referred you trolls to the book that documents how he did not end the cold war and that unemployment was MUCH worse under reagan than carter which i have read and that book uses sources from BACK THEN to document it all,oh and i was there so i know his sources he uses are true as well idiot.
> 
> 
> you lost your credibility running off from those facts i used that proved jfk was going to get rid of the CIA,pull out of vietnam,that hey killed him,and they control the major media you also wont anser that question either i just got done asking for the tird time here,why you listen to crusader idiot when HE agrees with me about 9/11 being an inside job and that the CIA killed JFK? YOU TROLLS KEEP PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THAT QUESTION.
Click to expand...


When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam?  I well aware that liberally leaning historians have *tried* to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing.  It's amusing how so many now believe that they *know* what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam.  This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course.  Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War.  Liberals HATE that!  It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK.  The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation.  The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward.  We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam.  There is no indication that he was leaning that way.  I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> President Reagan: Speech on Airstrikes Against Libya, April 14, 1986 - YouTube



Confirms everything.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Reagan: Speech on Airstrikes Against Libya, April 14, 1986 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confirms everything.
Click to expand...


Yeah? what would that be?


----------



## Jroc

9/11 inside job said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives pick the Gipper, of all Repub President's in the 20th century to choose from, to idolize
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because they have been brainwashed and conditioned  by the CIA* controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh is why.
Click to expand...


....


----------



## thanatos144

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You *really* want to debate facts?  If so I'd be happy to oblige...but if you think that posting nonsense from the sites you've provided here constitutes an "argument" that would stand up in a debate hall then I'm sorry but you're delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why you ran off with your tail between your legs when i took you to school that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam and LBJ reversed his policy and the CIA controls the media.
> 
> comedy gold from you Reagan worshipping trolls as always.
> 
> the problem with your lies is that those facts are backed up by sources that quoted them all.Dante in his opening post referred you trolls to the book that documents how he did not end the cold war and that unemployment was MUCH worse under reagan than carter which i have read and that book uses sources from BACK THEN to document it all,oh and i was there so i know his sources he uses are true as well idiot.
> 
> 
> you lost your credibility running off from those facts i used that proved jfk was going to get rid of the CIA,pull out of vietnam,that hey killed him,and they control the major media you also wont anser that question either i just got done asking for the tird time here,why you listen to crusader idiot when HE agrees with me about 9/11 being an inside job and that the CIA killed JFK? YOU TROLLS KEEP PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THAT QUESTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam?  I well aware that liberally leaning historians have *tried* to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing.  It's amusing how so many now believe that they *know* what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam.  This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course.  Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War.  Liberals HATE that!  It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK.  The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation.  The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward.  We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam.  There is no indication that he was leaning that way.  I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.
Click to expand...

Dont forget that the progressive historians try to hide the fact that as a senator Kennedy voted AGAINST civil rights. JFK isnt as clean as people think.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, sure Jroc, but you won't talk about what happened on Dec. 21, 1988. You made a claim that Reagan bombed Kadafi and we didn't  hear from him for 25 years and maybe you looked up the date and found out what happened and maybe you didn't. My comments about you stand unless you can respond with something other than attempts at insults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really get a pleasure out of making us spend time, at your bidding, looking up your magic dates when you could easily tell us what happened.
> 
> Here's two for you:  September 11, 1683  and February 23, 1973.  Get on it, slave!  It's so nice to see people jump when I say jump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If searching for Dec. 21, 1988 doesn't take you directly to Lockerbie bombing PAN AM FLIGHT 103 you need to find a new way to search. Take your pick or sources. Doesn't matter if it is LW, RW foriegn or domestic. Facts about it are not in dispute.
Click to expand...


All in the imperative mood.  You are not an emperor.  You are a dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You *really* want to debate facts?  If so I'd be happy to oblige...but if you think that posting nonsense from the sites you've provided here constitutes an "argument" that would stand up in a debate hall then I'm sorry but you're delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why you ran off with your tail between your legs when i took you to school that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam and LBJ reversed his policy and the CIA controls the media.
> 
> comedy gold from you Reagan worshipping trolls as always.
> 
> the problem with your lies is that those facts are backed up by sources that quoted them all.Dante in his opening post referred you trolls to the book that documents how he did not end the cold war and that unemployment was MUCH worse under reagan than carter which i have read and that book uses sources from BACK THEN to document it all,oh and i was there so i know his sources he uses are true as well idiot.
> 
> 
> you lost your credibility running off from those facts i used that proved jfk was going to get rid of the CIA,pull out of vietnam,that hey killed him,and they control the major media you also wont anser that question either i just got done asking for the tird time here,why you listen to crusader idiot when HE agrees with me about 9/11 being an inside job and that the CIA killed JFK? YOU TROLLS KEEP PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THAT QUESTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam?  I well aware that liberally leaning historians have *tried* to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing.  It's amusing how so many now believe that they *know* what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam.  This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course.  Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War.  Liberals HATE that!  It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK.  The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation.  The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward.  We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam.  There is no indication that he was leaning that way.  I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.
Click to expand...



That's like saying that if Hitler had conquered England, we don't know if he would have exterminated the Jews there.   JFK was a loose-cannon fraternity bully.  He definitely would have rushed into Vietnam and gotten stuck there, forcing the Limousine Liberals to find another hero from their class.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11's view that John F. Kennedy was a liberal "saint" is rather amusing.  Kennedy did a LOT of saber rattling during his short stint as President.  Bay of Pigs...Berlin airlift..."advisers" to Vietnam...a naval embargo of Cuba?  The "man" was nothing like the "myth" that liberals have constructed since his death.


----------



## bendog

JFK was many things, but a loose cannon frat boy was not one of them.  The comment on civil rights is interesting.  One can make a strong case for JFK being pretty cynical on civil rights, but the fact was he didn't have good relations with congress, and was dependent upon Southern Democrat Senators.  70% of blacks voted for him in 1960, and got little for it.  We can speculate on what might have been in an election of 1964, but the math is pretty obvious.  W/O La, Ark, Ga, SC and Va, JFK was toast, and he knew he'd be running against Goldwater.  In actuality the men respected one another, differed little on communism, and deeply differed on libertarianism v. the new deal and the view of a social contract.

United States presidential election, 1960 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JFK views evolved.  He viewed civil rights as more a moral issue than a political one.  States control voting after all.  But after the violence of 1963, he pushed his civil rights bill and welcomed MLK, Jr's March on Washington.  Nevertheless, without doubt, he moved carefully to not get too far ahead of public opinion.  

In many senses, Kennedy&#8217;s hands were tied by both national and international events. The reaction of the KKK to the Freedom Rides of 1961 was shown on national television and clearly shocked the public. However, 63% of people polled stated that they believed that the Freedom Rides should not have taken place as they were provocative (even though federal law was on the Riders side). Kennedy himself condemned the Riders for their lack of patriotism at a time of international tension over the Berlin Wall, Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. For many Americans the world scenario was of much greater importance than specific &#8216;home difficulties&#8217;. Involvement in the Freedom Riders affair would have been politically sensitive especially as Kennedy did not have a sizeable public mandate to initiate major change after the narrowest of victories against Nixon.

John Kennedy and Civil Rights


----------



## Camp

PrometheusBound said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really get a pleasure out of making us spend time, at your bidding, looking up your magic dates when you could easily tell us what happened.
> 
> Here's two for you:  September 11, 1683  and February 23, 1973.  Get on it, slave!  It's so nice to see people jump when I say jump!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If searching for Dec. 21, 1988 doesn't take you directly to Lockerbie bombing PAN AM FLIGHT 103 you need to find a new way to search. Take your pick or sources. Doesn't matter if it is LW, RW foriegn or domestic. Facts about it are not in dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All in the imperative mood.  You are not an emperor.  You are a dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies.
Click to expand...


Your lack of awareness in regards to investigative techniques and methods does not make me a "dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies."  You won't even understand that statement. You will think it is a critical analysis of your research abilities. It's not, although I question that too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

USSR
USSR
USSR
USSR
USSR 
Reagan
No more USSR

See how that works?


----------



## Camp

Some people glorify dead Presidents the way old people glorify "the good old days". They like to remember the good stuff and convenietly forget or ignore the bad stuff. Lib's have Kennedy and con's have Reagan. Some folks just feel comfortable living in imaginary thoughts and dreams.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Some people glorify dead Presidents the way old people glorify "the good old days". They like to remember the good stuff and convenietly forget or ignore the bad stuff. Lib's have Kennedy and con's have Reagan. Some folks just feel comfortable living in imaginary thoughts and dreams.



Results are results 



> *REAGANS ECONOMIC SUCCESS*
> Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
> 20 million new jobs were created.
> Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
> The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
> Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
> Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
> The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
> The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
> The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
> During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
> In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
> The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
> (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
> The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
> The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.


----------



## thanatos144

bendog said:


> JFK was many things, but a loose cannon frat boy was not one of them.  The comment on civil rights is interesting.  One can make a strong case for JFK being pretty cynical on civil rights, but the fact was he didn't have good relations with congress, and was dependent upon Southern Democrat Senators.  70% of blacks voted for him in 1960, and got little for it.  We can speculate on what might have been in an election of 1964, but the math is pretty obvious.  W/O La, Ark, Ga, SC and Va, JFK was toast, and he knew he'd be running against Goldwater.  In actuality the men respected one another, differed little on communism, and deeply differed on libertarianism v. the new deal and the view of a social contract.
> 
> United States presidential election, 1960 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> JFK views evolved.  He viewed civil rights as more a moral issue than a political one.  States control voting after all.  But after the violence of 1963, he pushed his civil rights bill and welcomed MLK, Jr's March on Washington.  Nevertheless, without doubt, he moved carefully to not get too far ahead of public opinion.
> 
> In many senses, Kennedys hands were tied by both national and international events. The reaction of the KKK to the Freedom Rides of 1961 was shown on national television and clearly shocked the public. However, 63% of people polled stated that they believed that the Freedom Rides should not have taken place as they were provocative (even though federal law was on the Riders side). Kennedy himself condemned the Riders for their lack of patriotism at a time of international tension over the Berlin Wall, Cuba and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. For many Americans the world scenario was of much greater importance than specific home difficulties. Involvement in the Freedom Riders affair would have been politically sensitive especially as Kennedy did not have a sizeable public mandate to initiate major change after the narrowest of victories against Nixon.
> 
> John Kennedy and Civil Rights


The KKK are democrats and thus Kennedy voters.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If searching for Dec. 21, 1988 doesn't take you directly to Lockerbie bombing PAN AM FLIGHT 103 you need to find a new way to search. Take your pick or sources. Doesn't matter if it is LW, RW foriegn or domestic. Facts about it are not in dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All in the imperative mood.  You are not an emperor.  You are a dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of awareness in regards to investigative techniques and methods does not make me a "dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies."  You won't even understand that statement. You will think it is a critical analysis of your research abilities. It's not, although I question that too.
Click to expand...


Your bossy attitude about making us look up dates when you could have easily told us what happened makes me immediately suspicious.  An investigator would notice emotional behavior from witnesses or even from his fellow investigators.  Your slavish worship of professional sources from well-funded Conspiracy blogs indicates an inability to think on your own.  Also, your refusal to do yourself what you asked us to do for you proves that you are a conceited power-freak who can't be trusted.

September 11, 1683:  the peak of the last jihad.  The Turks who led that one had the whole of Europe theirs for the taking, but blew it out of greed and a lack of religious commitment.  Al Qaida wanted to go back to that date and do it right this time.

February 23, 1973.  The Israelis shot down a Libyan airliner that had strayed into their territory, saying that their spies or tortured prisoners had revealed that the terrorists were planning to hijack an airliner and using it as a bomb.  So all you know-it-alls who think that the modern 9/11 was a surprise prove your disqualification to discuss this incident.  That includes Condoleeza Rice, but she is more at fault than even you dupes because it was her job to know about that preview of the 9/11 tactic. 

 As usual, our Greedhead corporate trash contributed in two ways:  by the airline executives (who should have been *execut*ed) who were too cheap to pay for locked cockpit doors.  Second, the architectural firms who built the WTC and designed it with the supporting structures on the outer part in order to get more office space and rent for that. 

A question that will determine if your IQ is high enough is whether you thought it might be terrorists when you heard about the *first* crash.  Few did, but few have the High IQs we need in these positions.  Our authorities are just no-talent brown-noses and bluebloods.  It is your jealousy of High IQs that will destroy our civilization.


----------



## PrometheusBound

CrusaderFrank said:


> USSR
> USSR
> USSR
> USSR
> USSR
> Reagan
> No more USSR
> 
> See how that works?



Except that Putin is no different from any other Communist Russian aggressive dictator.  Russia had 20 years of capitalist democracy and it was a complete failure, just as have the last 30 years of American capitalist democracy.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people glorify dead Presidents the way old people glorify "the good old days". They like to remember the good stuff and convenietly forget or ignore the bad stuff. Lib's have Kennedy and con's have Reagan. Some folks just feel comfortable living in imaginary thoughts and dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Results are results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REAGANS ECONOMIC SUCCESS*
> Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
> 20 million new jobs were created.
> Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
> The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
> Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
> Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
> The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
> The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
> The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
> During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
> In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
> The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
> (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
> The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
> The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Except that you are violating one of the dogmas of Libretardian theology.  Increased economic activity is supposed to drive up the price of oil.  Reagan's success only proves that the effective use of military power creates domestic prosperity.  By threatening or at least scaring the OPECkers about what he might do to them, he drove the cartel's price-fixing- down drastically, which was the only reason our economy prospered.  The Bush Family Circus, through the wars of both the Lipper and Junior, re-instituted OPEC's ability to fix prices.  A free market means only that the Greedhead thieves who control all markets are free to do anything they want.


----------



## Camp

PrometheusBound said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> All in the imperative mood.  You are not an emperor.  You are a dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of awareness in regards to investigative techniques and methods does not make me a "dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies."  You won't even understand that statement. You will think it is a critical analysis of your research abilities. It's not, although I question that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bossy attitude about making us look up dates when you could have easily told us what happened makes me immediately suspicious.  An investigator would notice emotional behavior from witnesses or even from his fellow investigators.  Your slavish worship of professional sources from well-funded Conspiracy blogs indicates an inability to think on your own.  Also, your refusal to do yourself what you asked us to do for you proves that you are a conceited power-freak who can't be trusted.
> 
> September 11, 1683:  the peak of the last jihad.  The Turks who led that one had the whole of Europe theirs for the taking, but blew it out of greed and a lack of religious commitment.  Al Qaida wanted to go back to that date and do it right this time.
> 
> February 23, 1973.  The Israelis shot down a Libyan airliner that had strayed into their territory, saying that their spies or tortured prisoners had revealed that the terrorists were planning to hijack an airliner and using it as a bomb.  So all you know-it-alls who think that the modern 9/11 was a surprise prove your disqualification to discuss this incident.  That includes Condoleeza Rice, but she is more at fault than even you dupes because it was her job to know about that preview of the 9/11 tactic.
> 
> As usual, our Greedhead corporate trash contributed in two ways:  by the airline executives (who should have been *execut*ed) who were too cheap to pay for locked cockpit doors.  Second, the architectural firms who built the WTC and designed it with the supporting structures on the outer part in order to get more office space and rent for that.
> 
> A question that will determine if your IQ is high enough is whether you thought it might be terrorists when you heard about the *first* crash.  Few did, but few have the High IQs we need in these positions.  Our authorities are just no-talent brown-noses and bluebloods.  It is your jealousy of High IQs that will destroy our civilization.
Click to expand...


You are confused or trying to link me to another poster about a different topic than the one I have been posting about. I have not directed anyone to any source or link. Certainly, I haven't made anyone research the dates I posted. Those who became curious about the dates could or would look the dates up themselves and quickly discover I was posting dates of terrorist attacks during the Reagan years. 
I purposely only posted dates so that the point I was attempting to make would not be contaminated with biased links and sources. I was and am confident that once interested persons began their own research they would come to similar conclusions as the ones I have come to.                 
My purpose has not been to convince people that Reagan was good or bad in an overall analysis, although I will admit the "Fuck Ronald Reagan" tag following the posted dates was a gimmick to help draw attention and curiousity to my post. The thread is about revisionist history. Reagan's policies towards terrorist attacks is part of history. Revisionist have tried to ignore or hide it. My post fit the thread perfectly. I have yet to see challanges, debunking or alternative viewpoints as to what I have posted. I have only seen deflections from the subject and personel attacks or insults. It doesn't change the fact that Reagan mishandled terrorism during his administration and helped create the monster it eventually became.


----------



## bendog

I don't recall Reagan reacting militarily vis a vis opec (beyond selling arms to iran (-

How successful has OPEC been since the early 1970s? Not as successful as many observers believe. Except in the wake of the 1979 Iranian upheaval, and in market anticipation of a possible destruction of substantial reserves in the 1990&#8211;1991 and 2003 Gulf wars, real prices of crude oil fell from 1974 through 2003. Prices increased in 2004 and (thus far) 2005, but this has little to do with the effectiveness of OPEC as a cartel. The causes of the 2004 and 2005 price increases were increased demand in Asia; production problems in Venezuela, Nigeria, and other producing regions; a weakening dollar; and an increased terrorist threat to oil production and transport facilities. Over the longer time frame, prices began declining rapidly in the early 1980s, after the Reagan administration ended the price and allocation regulations, which, because of their specific design, increased the U.S. demand for foreign oil. The Saudis then concluded that lower prices and higher production would further their interests; world market prices (in 2004 dollars) fell from $62.76 per barrel in 1981 to $44.89 in 1984, $21.84 in 1986, and $21.39 in 1988. Indeed, prices even unadjusted for inflation often have declined, from $34.28 in 1981 to $14.96 in 1988. Table 1 shows price data; Table 2 contains current esti
OPEC: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Further, Reagan, like all successive presidents except BushII, pursued policies based on neoliberalsm, which essentially is using govt to create and sustain free markets.  BushII attempted to use the military to secure access to commodities, and we saw how that worked out for us.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You *really* want to debate facts?  If so I'd be happy to oblige...but if you think that posting nonsense from the sites you've provided here constitutes an "argument" that would stand up in a debate hall then I'm sorry but you're delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats why you ran off with your tail between your legs when i took you to school that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam and LBJ reversed his policy and the CIA controls the media.
> 
> comedy gold from you Reagan worshipping trolls as always.
> 
> the problem with your lies is that those facts are backed up by sources that quoted them all.Dante in his opening post referred you trolls to the book that documents how he did not end the cold war and that unemployment was MUCH worse under reagan than carter which i have read and that book uses sources from BACK THEN to document it all,oh and i was there so i know his sources he uses are true as well idiot.
> 
> 
> you lost your credibility running off from those facts i used that proved jfk was going to get rid of the CIA,pull out of vietnam,that hey killed him,and they control the major media you also wont anser that question either i just got done asking for the tird time here,why you listen to crusader idiot when HE agrees with me about 9/11 being an inside job and that the CIA killed JFK? YOU TROLLS KEEP PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THAT QUESTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam?  I well aware that liberally leaning historians have *tried* to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing.  It's amusing how so many now believe that they *know* what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam.  This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course.  Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War.  Liberals HATE that!  It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK.  The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation.  The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward.  We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam.  There is no indication that he was leaning that way.  I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.
Click to expand...


post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.

thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
no inidication my ass.

hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.

the TRUTH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.

you wont though since you woont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats why you ran off with your tail between your legs when i took you to school that JFK was going to pull out of vietnam and LBJ reversed his policy and the CIA controls the media.
> 
> comedy gold from you Reagan worshipping trolls as always.
> 
> the problem with your lies is that those facts are backed up by sources that quoted them all.Dante in his opening post referred you trolls to the book that documents how he did not end the cold war and that unemployment was MUCH worse under reagan than carter which i have read and that book uses sources from BACK THEN to document it all,oh and i was there so i know his sources he uses are true as well idiot.
> 
> 
> you lost your credibility running off from those facts i used that proved jfk was going to get rid of the CIA,pull out of vietnam,that hey killed him,and they control the major media you also wont anser that question either i just got done asking for the tird time here,why you listen to crusader idiot when HE agrees with me about 9/11 being an inside job and that the CIA killed JFK? YOU TROLLS KEEP PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THAT QUESTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam?  I well aware that liberally leaning historians have *tried* to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing.  It's amusing how so many now believe that they *know* what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam.  This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course.  Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War.  Liberals HATE that!  It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK.  The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation.  The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward.  We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam.  There is no indication that he was leaning that way.  I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.
> 
> thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
> no inidication my ass.
> 
> hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.
> 
> the TRURH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.
> 
> you wont though since you woont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it
Click to expand...


LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam?  Really?  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

oh and i also love it oldstly how you ran off when cornered with facts that the CIA controls the media. something else i did not post earlier on that is even a former deputy director of the CIA wrote a book about it called THE CIA AND THE CULT OF THE INTELLIGENCE  CONFESSING they have CIA PLANTS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.i voctor marchetti was the guy.guess he is a tin foil hatter though according to you though.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> oh and i also love it oldstly how you ran off when cornered with facts that the CIA controls the media. something else i did not post earlier on that is even a former deputy director of the CIA wrote a book about it called THE CIA AND THE CULT OF THE INTELLIGENCE  CONFESSING they have CIA PLANTS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.i voctor marchetti was the guy.guess he is a tin foil hatter though according to you though.



I don't make a habit of "running off", 9/11...especially in the face of silly theories such as yours.  I do however trundle off to work on a regular basis...you should try that yourself!


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam?  I well aware that liberally leaning historians have *tried* to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing.  It's amusing how so many now believe that they *know* what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam.  This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course.  Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War.  Liberals HATE that!  It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK.  The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation.  The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward.  We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam.  There is no indication that he was leaning that way.  I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.
> 
> thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
> no inidication my ass.
> 
> hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.
> 
> the TRURH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.
> 
> you wont though since you woont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam?  Really?  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?
Click to expand...


He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progs will never get over Reagan freeing Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism.


----------



## Unkotare

PrometheusBound said:


> Also, no one has a right to a dime of his Daddy's money or to any benefit from Daddy's connections.  If we have to do it on our own, so must the spoiled-rotten spawn of the rich.  Or they must die.





You're not just an idiotic, far-left loon, you're a full-blown psycho.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you "take me to school" that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam?  I well aware that liberally leaning historians have *tried* to make that contention but I've never seen anything that shows Kennedy doing any such thing.  It's amusing how so many now believe that they *know* what Kennedy's thoughts were on Vietnam.  This attempt to "rehabilitate" part of the Kennedy legacy is understandable of course.  Here he is this liberal "icon" and yet he was one of the primary drivers of the escalation of the Vietnam War.  Liberals HATE that!  It doesn't fit with the myth of JFK.  The liberal myth that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated that day in Dallas that he would unquestionably been one of the great Presidents of our nation.  The truth is...we don't know how Kennedy would have fared going forward.  We don't know if he would have pulled out of Vietnam.  There is no indication that he was leaning that way.  I'm sorry, but there simply isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.
> 
> thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
> no inidication my ass.
> 
> hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.
> 
> the TRUTH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.
> 
> you wont though since you wont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam?  Really?  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?
Click to expand...


there you are showing your arrogance to avoid the fact you have been proven wrong. you reaganuts as usual,prove how delusional you are,better get off that crack you been smoking.your seeing things because of that.The date is OCTOBER "1963" RETARD,not 2003.Nice game of dodgeball.

since your so stupid and ALWAYS dodge facts,he wasnt killed till nov 22nd 1963.

Its not my fault your too scared of the truth to go down to washington dc and look at the document. if you werent so dense,you would know the ARRB -the assassination records review board that clinton signed reluctanty in 96 to uncover documents from the eisenhower,kennedy and nixon administrations,they discovered documents from AGAIN "OCTOBER 1963." where he signed that document.

again as always,you show what a coward you are because you WONT answer a simple question i have asked you trolls over a 100 times,nor will you address the facts i displayed that he was going to pull out of vietnam,


up till 1996,reseachers and historians  had their suspecions but they never could prove it to be true till 1996 when the ARRB discovered the document in the national archives.

He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.[/QUOTE]

the reaganut trolls for sure have reading comprehension problems.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh and i also love it oldstly how you ran off when cornered with facts that the CIA controls the media. something else i did not post earlier on that is even a former deputy director of the CIA wrote a book about it called THE CIA AND THE CULT OF THE INTELLIGENCE  CONFESSING they have CIA PLANTS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.i voctor marchetti was the guy.guess he is a tin foil hatter though according to you though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make a habit of "running off", 9/11...especially in the face of silly theories such as yours.  I do however trundle off to work on a regular basis...you should try that yourself!
Click to expand...


when I say run off,I am not referring to going back to work after a post AND COMING BACK LATER.

I am referring to the FACT that everyone of you reaganuts  run off when you are cornered with facts you cant refute. 

you never come back and address AT least HALF of them,you play dodgeball with them and wont even answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION i have asked you trolls over a 100 times to answer but you refuse to and wont even ask me what the question is that you overlooked.

I PROVED JFK signed that document in OCT 63,and that LBJ reversed it two days later after his assassination and you blantaly ignored it


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives pick the Gipper, of all Repub President's in the 20th century to choose from, to idolize
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because they have been brainwashed and conditioned  by the CIA* controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh is why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11's view that John F. Kennedy was a liberal "saint" is rather amusing.  Kennedy did a LOT of saber rattling during his short stint as President.  Bay of Pigs...Berlin airlift..."advisers" to Vietnam...a naval embargo of Cuba?  The "man" was nothing like the "myth" that liberals have constructed since his death.



your worshipping of that evil bastard reagan and evading facts how evil and corrupt he was refusing to address them is whats amusing.

your such a troll you ignore FACTS that the CIA lied to him from the very beginning and all they way through the whole bay of pigs invasion when it was going on that because of their lies,afterwards,he dired dulles and bissel for their blatant lies to him knowing it was going to be a disaster. if you had a brain,you would know the plan they presented to kenendy on the bay of pigs was VASTLY different than the one they presented to eisenhower and the reason they altered when they presented it to kennedy was cause it was designed to suceed under their buddy Nixon whom ran covert wars for the CIA as vp under eisenhower.why do you think nixon in his white house tapes kept referring to that hunt scab in the bay of pigs invasion when that had nothing to do with watergate?

it was because he really meant the kenendy assassination thing since hunt was involved in the bay of pigs invasion.oh and hunt after lying for years about being in dallas,even CONFESSED later on in a tape recoreder to his son on his deathbed he in fact WAS in dealy plaza as an operation to kill kennedy.i posted the video before,but liek the trolls you all are,you ignored it.

oh and even a couple of nixons white house aides wrote a book saying thats what nixon was referring to was the kenendy assassination.guess they are tin foil hatters though?

allen dulles who kenendy fired after the bay of pigs invasion was appoinented on the warren commission by Lyndon johnson who got to handpick them all.no bias of an investigation there. johnson wasnt even investigated and should have been a prime suspect since he had more to gain by the assassiantion that anybody.

oh and you cripple your arguments with your OWN words and help me win my case against you trolls everytime with your own words.

the fact kennedy only sent in ADVISORS and NEVER combat troops.even PBS has acknowledged that fact. johnson reversed kennedys policy on the gulf of tonkin incident.

oh and remember where i said even the commander of that ship and mcnamara have come forward and confessed that johnson lied,that the vietcong never fired on them? playing dodgeball as always.

only an idiot would deny that when Dulles got the phone call from Johnson to be on the warren commission,that he wasnt out celebrating that night knowing he got the last laugh on kennedy able to rewrite history like he did.

no biased investigation by the warren commssion there with THAT appointment.


OH and I ALSO noticed how you EVADED the facts in this link here  in post #323 on this page below  with overwhelming proof that the CIA has plants in the media.you might want to watch that video in this link here on page    

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-22.html
where congress talks about it in that video on that link and not ignore what some very prominent people in government have said about them as well in that link.


----------



## Unkotare

9/11 inside job said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because they have been brainwashed and conditioned  by the CIA* controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh is why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.
Click to expand...




Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Unkotare said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?
Click to expand...


not by trolls like you frady cat deniars who have proven in spades you guys are cowards and cant debate.

thanks for proving you dont know how to debate either,you reaganuts would be laughed out of a courtroom in a minute and lose your case right there resfusing to answer a simple question.great rebutall.


thanks for proving what a coward you are as well.wont even aaks what the question is i have asked over a hundred times.you have been thrown out of the court by the judge on refusal to answer the question.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?
Click to expand...


He understands the use of disinformation and the workings of the CIA better than anyone I've seen posting here. You may disagree with his conclusions and question some of his sources and links as being biased, but he is basing his analysis on factual data or data that is deserving of further study.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice as always.when your cornered with facts you cant refute,you evade them and as always,like the paid troll you are,wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked you over a 100 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously, you loon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He understands the use of disinformation and the workings of the CIA better than anyone I've seen posting here. You may disagree with his conclusions and question some of his sources and links as being biased, but he is basing his analysis on factual data or data that is deserving of further study.
Click to expand...


somehow even a FORMER deputy director writing a book about it called THE CIA AND THE CULT OF THE INTELLIGENCE "CONFESSING" in his book,that the CIA has agents in the LAMESTREAM media and workplaces,somehow THATS not good enough for them.

thats why they ignore the majority of everything i post not acknowledging it.

I very rarely ever come across someone like you on this board that has an understanding about the true nature of the CIA.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #283 on this page is where i took you to school.you ran away from it.
> 
> thats because YOU have neber gone to the archives in washington dc and seen the document that he signed in oct 2003 that recalled a COMPLETE withdrawal by ALL militay personal by 1965. two days later after the assassination.LBJ signed a document that REVERSED his policy and esculated the war with the gulf of tonkin incident that both the commander of that ship and robert mcnamara have come forward and said no vietnmanese EVER did fire on them.it was lie contrived by johnson and the government to get the war started.
> no inidication my ass.
> 
> hate to break your hear but he WAS one of the greatest in our time.NOT EVIL AND CORRUPT LIKE YOUR BASTARD HERO REAGAN. to spekk this out to you dummies stlye.he HE TRIED TO GET RID OF THE CIA,I TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL ON THAT EARLIER AND YOU IGNORED THE POST.bastard reagan reversed carters policy of trying to clean up the CIA when he got in and let it run rampart again and you idiots call that bastard a hero.
> 
> the TRURH is we KNOW he was going to pull out of vietnam.i posted this on my jfk thread as well.not that you will read it but i can only hope to be wrong that you wont be afraid and WILL read it this time.
> 
> you wont though since you woont even answer a simple question i have asked you trolls a 100 times here though with no reply to it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam?  Really?  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.
Click to expand...


That might be what, Sparky WANTED to say, Camp but it isn't what he posted.  You can always spot the people who get their info from conspiracy sites on the internet because when they aren't "cut and pasting", they are all but incomprehensible.

There is no proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam.  Quite the opposite actually.  The following is from an interview that Bobby Kennedy did back in 1964 regarding that very subject.



Third Oral History Interview with
ROBERT F. KENNEDY

April 30, 1964
New York, New York

By John Bartlow Martin
For the John F. Kennedy Library

[BEGIN TAPE V, REEL 1]

[snipping earlier portion of interview]

Martin:
    "All right. Now, Vietnam began in the first--on the 3rd of January started appearing rather prominently in the papers and, of course, still is, and was all through '63. Do you want to talk about it now? Do you want to wait till we come and pick up the coup later? In, on, in January, the Vietnamese killed three Americans and shot down five helicopters.

Kennedy:
    Viet Cong, you mean.

Martin:
    That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.

Kennedy:
    Yes. Well, yeah, what do you want to start with?

Martin:
    All right. At the beginning we seemed to have our lines crossed. I mean, the majority leader in the Senate, Mansfield, was saying this was not an American war, and he didn't think it was--that our--it should be--not, not--should not be an American war. He didn't think our heavy commitment there was justified. How'd you feel about it; how'd the president feel about it; and at what point did we get our lines straightened out?

Kennedy:
    Well, I don't think that . . .

Martin:
    Did I make myself clear?

Kennedy:
    No, I don't think that fact, Senator Mansfield or somebody in the Senate takes a position, necessarily means .. .

Martin:
    Well, he was majority leader.

Kennedy:
    Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.

Martin:
    What was the overwhelming reason?

Kennedy:
    Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.

Martin:
    What if it did?

Kennedy:
    Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.

Martin:
    There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
    No.

Martin:
    But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .

Kennedy:
    No . . .

Martin:
    . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?

Kennedy:
    Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

Martin:
    It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .

Kennedy:
    Yes.

Martin:
    . . . and couldn't lose it.

Kennedy:
    Yes.

Martin:
    And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy:
    Well, we'd face that when we came to it.

Martin:
    Mm hm. Or go with air strikes, or--direct from carriers, I mean, something like that?

Kennedy:
    But without. . . . It didn't have to be faced at that time. In the first place, we were winning the war in 1962 and 1963, up until May or so of 1963. The situation was getting progressively better. And then I . . .

Martin:
    But then it got progre-- started going downhill, didn't it?

Kennedy:
    Yes, and then we had all the problems with the Buddhists and the . . .

Martin:
    Yeah.

Kennedy:
    And, uh . . .

Martin:
    Why did they go down, why did they get bad, Bob?

Kennedy:
    Well, I just think he was just, Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with, well, with the. . . . And then it was built up tremendously in an adverse fashion here in the United States and that was played back in Vietnam, and . . . . And I think just the people themselves became concerned about it. And so, it began to, the situation began to deteriorate in the spring of 1962, uh, spring of 1963. I think David Halberstam, from the New York Times' articles, had a strong effect on molding public opinion: the fact that the situation was unsatisfactory. Our problem was that thinking of Halberstam sort of as the Ma-- what Matthews [unidentified] did in Cuba, that Batista [Fulgencio R. Batista] was not very satisfactory, but the important thing was to try to get somebody who could replace him and somebody who could keep, continue the war and keep the country united, and that was far more difficult. So that was what was of great concern to all of us during this period of time. Nobody liked Diem particularly, but how to get rid of him and get somebody that would continue the war, not split the country in two, and therefore lose not only the war but the country. That was the great problem."

That's Bobby Kennedy...the closest person to John F. Kennedy in his Administration saying quite clearly that they didn't consider pulling out.


----------



## gipper

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam?  Really?  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might be what, Sparky WANTED to say, Camp but it isn't what he posted.  You can always spot the people who get their info from conspiracy sites on the internet because when they aren't "cut and pasting", they are all but incomprehensible.
> 
> There is no proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam.  Quite the opposite actually.  The following is from an interview that Bobby Kennedy did back in 1964 regarding that very subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Third Oral History Interview with
> ROBERT F. KENNEDY
> 
> April 30, 1964
> New York, New York
> 
> By John Bartlow Martin
> For the John F. Kennedy Library
> 
> [BEGIN TAPE V, REEL 1]
> 
> [snipping earlier portion of interview]
> 
> Martin:
> "All right. Now, Vietnam began in the first--on the 3rd of January started appearing rather prominently in the papers and, of course, still is, and was all through '63. Do you want to talk about it now? Do you want to wait till we come and pick up the coup later? In, on, in January, the Vietnamese killed three Americans and shot down five helicopters.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Viet Cong, you mean.
> 
> Martin:
> That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes. Well, yeah, what do you want to start with?
> 
> Martin:
> All right. At the beginning we seemed to have our lines crossed. I mean, the majority leader in the Senate, Mansfield, was saying this was not an American war, and he didn't think it was--that our--it should be--not, not--should not be an American war. He didn't think our heavy commitment there was justified. How'd you feel about it; how'd the president feel about it; and at what point did we get our lines straightened out?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Well, I don't think that . . .
> 
> Martin:
> Did I make myself clear?
> 
> Kennedy:
> No, I don't think that fact, Senator Mansfield or somebody in the Senate takes a position, necessarily means .. .
> 
> Martin:
> Well, he was majority leader.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.
> 
> Martin:
> What was the overwhelming reason?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.
> 
> Martin:
> What if it did?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.
> 
> Martin:
> There was never any consideration given to pulling out?
> 
> Kennedy:
> No.
> 
> Martin:
> But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
> 
> Kennedy:
> No . . .
> 
> Martin:
> . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.
> 
> Martin:
> It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> 
> Martin:
> . . . and couldn't lose it.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> 
> Martin:
> And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Well, we'd face that when we came to it.
> 
> Martin:
> Mm hm. Or go with air strikes, or--direct from carriers, I mean, something like that?
> 
> Kennedy:
> But without. . . . It didn't have to be faced at that time. In the first place, we were winning the war in 1962 and 1963, up until May or so of 1963. The situation was getting progressively better. And then I . . .
> 
> Martin:
> But then it got progre-- started going downhill, didn't it?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes, and then we had all the problems with the Buddhists and the . . .
> 
> Martin:
> Yeah.
> 
> Kennedy:
> And, uh . . .
> 
> Martin:
> Why did they go down, why did they get bad, Bob?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Well, I just think he was just, Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with, well, with the. . . . And then it was built up tremendously in an adverse fashion here in the United States and that was played back in Vietnam, and . . . . And I think just the people themselves became concerned about it. And so, it began to, the situation began to deteriorate in the spring of 1962, uh, spring of 1963. I think David Halberstam, from the New York Times' articles, had a strong effect on molding public opinion: the fact that the situation was unsatisfactory. Our problem was that thinking of Halberstam sort of as the Ma-- what Matthews [unidentified] did in Cuba, that Batista [Fulgencio R. Batista] was not very satisfactory, but the important thing was to try to get somebody who could replace him and somebody who could keep, continue the war and keep the country united, and that was far more difficult. So that was what was of great concern to all of us during this period of time. Nobody liked Diem particularly, but how to get rid of him and get somebody that would continue the war, not split the country in two, and therefore lose not only the war but the country. That was the great problem."
> 
> That's Bobby Kennedy...the closest person to John F. Kennedy in his Administration saying quite clearly that they didn't consider pulling out.
Click to expand...


There are conflicting opinions on this issue of JFK's intentions in Vietnam.  While RFK makes it clear he would have escalated the war, others say he would not have.  



> Yet, Galbraith notes, that a powerful counterargument came from unexpected source. Late in life, Robert McHamara, Secretary of Defense for JFK and LBJ, and a man reviled by the anti-war movement in the 1960s for his support of the war, said that he thought JFK would not have escalated the war as LBJ did in 1964. McNamaras statements lent credence to the arguments of historians, John Newman (JFK and Vietnam) and Howard Jones (Death of a Generation) who found that JFK had been quietly laying the groundwork for withdrawal without battlefield victory for much of 1963.
> 
> That interpretation gained more support in 1998 when the Assassination Records Review Board released the records of the May 1963 SecDef conference in which a phased withdrawal from Vietnam was put on the books as a policy option, something that was not known at the time and remained as a state secret for 35 years. When JFKs national security advisers met in Honululu on Nov. 20, 1963, their briefing books reiterated the plans for withdrawal without victory.
> 
> The debate endures because JFK expressed support for both his dovish policy option (withdrawal without victory) and his hawkish option (escalation until victory). But overall, Galbraith notes that on a series of foreign policy decisions in his first two years and half years in office, JFK rejected the recommendation of his hawkish advisers. He sees JFKs unfinished Vietnam policy in 1963 as
> 
> part of a larger strategy, of a sequence that included the Laos and Berlin settlements in 1961, the non-invasion of Cuba in 1962, the Test Ban Treaty in 1963. Kennedy subordinated the timing of these events to politics: he was quite prepared to leave soldiers in harms way until after his own reelection. His larger goal after that was to settle the Cold War, without either victory or defeata strategic vision laid out in JFKs commencement speech at American University on June 10, 1963.
> 
> ANOTHER VIEW
> 
> JFK as hawk: Going to Withdraw from Vietnam?
> 
> Two key documents:
> 
> Withdrawal from Vietnam (Oct. 11, 1963). JFK signs NSAM 263, an order to withdraw 1,000 troops out of roughly 16,000 Americans stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963, with the complete withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> Escalation in Vietnam (Nov. 26, 1963): Signed by President Lyndon Johnson four days after JFKs death, NSAM 273 succeeded NSAM 263 and ordered the planning of increased activity in Vietnam.
> JFKfacts » Was JFK going to pull out of Vietnam?


----------



## Oldstyle

If you read up on the mindset of the people in charge back then...the "withdraw" that was being discussed was taking place at a time when it appeared that the fight against the North Vietnamese was being *won*.  The proposals to withdraw troops that people like 9/11 mistakenly view as a Kennedy plan to abandon Vietnam were being made in a scenario where we would be pulling out having successfully halted the spread of communism to South Vietnam...not a scenario where we would be pulling out having lost to the communists.  Kennedy was always quite clear that he was not willing to allow South Vietnam to fall.


----------



## Oldstyle

Quite frankly, Gipper...I view this whole notion of what JFK "would" have done to be wishful thinking on the part of those that revere the JFK legacy and wish to somehow scrub the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam from that legacy.  There really is nothing there to show that Kennedy was ever seriously intending to withdraw troops once it became clear that the war was not going as well as it had originally been perceived.


----------



## gipper

Oldstyle said:


> Quite frankly, Gipper...I view this whole notion of what JFK "would" have done to be wishful thinking on the part of those that revere the JFK legacy and wish to somehow scrub the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam from that legacy.  There really is nothing there to show that Kennedy was ever seriously intending to withdraw troops once it became clear that the war was not going as well as it had originally been perceived.



I agree that his intentions are not exactly clear, but that does not mean he would have escalated as the disgusting fool LBJ did.   While I agree that many on the Left want to foolishly believe JFK some kind of liberal saint, I do not think we should conclude from this, that he would have escalated.  

After all, he had sought detente with the USSR and an end to the Cold War, had refused to escalate the Bay of Pigs, resolved the Cuban Missile crisis peacefully over the objections of many in the military, and essentially had very poor relations with the warfare state that encompassed the CIA and the Joint Chiefs.  He fired the scumbag Dulles, who had considerable power within the warfare state and who made no effort to disguise his disgust and hatred of JFK.   

It is obvious the warfare state wanted confrontation with the USSR and opposed JFK's efforts at conciliation.  They also wanted to escalate in Vietnam and feared JFK would not go along with them, but they knew LBJ would do as he was told.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...so Kennedy arose from the grave in October of 2003 and signed a document to withdraw all of our military forces from Vietnam?  Really?  You're not the sharpest tool in the shed...are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said he had seen the document in Oct. of 2003, not that Kennedy had signed it in 2003.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might be what, Sparky WANTED to say, Camp but it isn't what he posted.  You can always spot the people who get their info from conspiracy sites on the internet because when they aren't "cut and pasting", they are all but incomprehensible.
> 
> There is no proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam.  Quite the opposite actually.  The following is from an interview that Bobby Kennedy did back in 1964 regarding that very subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Third Oral History Interview with
> ROBERT F. KENNEDY
> 
> April 30, 1964
> New York, New York
> 
> By John Bartlow Martin
> For the John F. Kennedy Library
> 
> [BEGIN TAPE V, REEL 1]
> 
> [snipping earlier portion of interview]
> 
> Martin:
> "All right. Now, Vietnam began in the first--on the 3rd of January started appearing rather prominently in the papers and, of course, still is, and was all through '63. Do you want to talk about it now? Do you want to wait till we come and pick up the coup later? In, on, in January, the Vietnamese killed three Americans and shot down five helicopters.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Viet Cong, you mean.
> 
> Martin:
> That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes. Well, yeah, what do you want to start with?
> 
> Martin:
> All right. At the beginning we seemed to have our lines crossed. I mean, the majority leader in the Senate, Mansfield, was saying this was not an American war, and he didn't think it was--that our--it should be--not, not--should not be an American war. He didn't think our heavy commitment there was justified. How'd you feel about it; how'd the president feel about it; and at what point did we get our lines straightened out?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Well, I don't think that . . .
> 
> Martin:
> Did I make myself clear?
> 
> Kennedy:
> No, I don't think that fact, Senator Mansfield or somebody in the Senate takes a position, necessarily means .. .
> 
> Martin:
> Well, he was majority leader.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam.
> 
> Martin:
> What was the overwhelming reason?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.
> 
> Martin:
> What if it did?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam.
> 
> Martin:
> There was never any consideration given to pulling out?
> 
> Kennedy:
> No.
> 
> Martin:
> But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
> 
> Kennedy:
> No . . .
> 
> Martin:
> . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.
> 
> Martin:
> It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> 
> Martin:
> . . . and couldn't lose it.
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> 
> Martin:
> And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Well, we'd face that when we came to it.
> 
> Martin:
> Mm hm. Or go with air strikes, or--direct from carriers, I mean, something like that?
> 
> Kennedy:
> But without. . . . It didn't have to be faced at that time. In the first place, we were winning the war in 1962 and 1963, up until May or so of 1963. The situation was getting progressively better. And then I . . .
> 
> Martin:
> But then it got progre-- started going downhill, didn't it?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Yes, and then we had all the problems with the Buddhists and the . . .
> 
> Martin:
> Yeah.
> 
> Kennedy:
> And, uh . . .
> 
> Martin:
> Why did they go down, why did they get bad, Bob?
> 
> Kennedy:
> Well, I just think he was just, Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with, well, with the. . . . And then it was built up tremendously in an adverse fashion here in the United States and that was played back in Vietnam, and . . . . And I think just the people themselves became concerned about it. And so, it began to, the situation began to deteriorate in the spring of 1962, uh, spring of 1963. I think David Halberstam, from the New York Times' articles, had a strong effect on molding public opinion: the fact that the situation was unsatisfactory. Our problem was that thinking of Halberstam sort of as the Ma-- what Matthews [unidentified] did in Cuba, that Batista [Fulgencio R. Batista] was not very satisfactory, but the important thing was to try to get somebody who could replace him and somebody who could keep, continue the war and keep the country united, and that was far more difficult. So that was what was of great concern to all of us during this period of time. Nobody liked Diem particularly, but how to get rid of him and get somebody that would continue the war, not split the country in two, and therefore lose not only the war but the country. That was the great problem."
> 
> That's Bobby Kennedy...the closest person to John F. Kennedy in his Administration saying quite clearly that they didn't consider pulling out.
Click to expand...


and thats YOU playing dodgeball again as always  ignoring the FACT as always that he signed document # 263 two months before his assassination which called for a complete withdrawal from vietnam by 1965.  That information proves nothing whatsoever that he was going to remain in vietnam."MY" information i have posted throughout the whole thread however proves he WAS going to pull out of vietnam.

 just because Bobby SAID there was never any intention by Jfk to ever pull out, doesnt mean Bobby was being truthful.what Bobby said and JFK  really DID were two different things.

its well known that he had to look like he had a strong anti communist stance against the communists in vietnam saying we need to fight communism and remain in vietnam but what he was ACTUALLY doing behind the scenes shows he was doing just the opposite.

Bobby when he made that statement was also obviously not aware of the document he signed in oct 1963 in hawaii  that called for a complete withdrawel of vietnam by 1965. 

Oh and its funny that like you always do in your discussions,you  only helped prove my case FOR ME that he was going to pull out of vietnam completely by 1965 mentioning the names of senator mansfield and mcarthur.

You see,unlike you,I am not afraid of the truth and have done a lot of research on this meeting many scholars over the years that have reseached this night and day devoting hunderds of hours to it  and they have the documents and proof that he was  going to pull out of vietnam/I could refer you to a book that documents all this stuff I have said but as we both know,you wont read it.you wont read that book that exposes the myth of reagan so you wont read this one either.,

 again unlike you,they have been to the national archives and seen the documents.None of your ramblings shoots down his document # 263 he signed that called for a compete withdrawl of vietnam by 1965.:

you should start a comedy club.

all you did was help prove my case for me because if you had done any research than only seeing what you WANT to see,you would know that after consulting with senator mansfield and after meeting with mcarthur in the middle of 1963,after having discussiosns with Mcarthur,Mac even told JFK he thought vietnam was an unwinnable war and we should pull out and he told his 2 closest aides dave powers and kenny o donnel  after hearing it from Mac,that he had no doubts anymore,telling them after the election when he got releected he was going to pull out of vietnam.

He had to wait till after the election to do it though because he did not want to look like he was soft on communism to the american people.I said that once before at least,and you blatantly ignored it.

thanks for the post,you really should quit while your ahead cause all you have been doing since coming on here,is helping me prove you wrong everytime.

oh and just for the record,I am against posting links because yeah just because the NET says it doesnt mean its true but you reaganuts always how your hypocrisy by posting propaganda with LINKS as well that are pure b.s and then cowardly run off with your tail between your legs anytime challenged to refute facts in links.

oh and since you wont address those facts that i layed out in that post  of high ranking top officials in government saying the CIA is a corrupt organization,including people like Harry truman and Jfk himself and wont watch the video where congress had a hearing about this,then nice to see you FINALLY admitting you are cluless,that i am right and your wrong.

and thanks as always showing your a coward and wont answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION I have asked throughout this entire thread at least a hundred time.you do that in a court,the judge throws you out and laughs at you.

oh and one more thing.i only post links cause you hypocrite reaganuts do the same thing.I already said you need to read that books that dante mentioned at the beginning of this post that exposes the myth of reagan,his book quotes REAL sources back then from MAINSTREAM newspapers from the 80's where for instance,polls taken back then by mainstream media sources shoed through most his two terms,he was very unpopular with the people and yet,you worship that b.s propaganda link crusader retard posted saying he was very popular defending it and then say "i" post some links that are propaganda.

you have been exposed as the hypocritw you are who is afraid of the truth and in denial.congrats on your hypocrisy.. Im done with you.have fun talking to yourself.


----------



## Jroc

Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite frankly, Gipper...I view this whole notion of what JFK "would" have done to be wishful thinking on the part of those that revere the JFK legacy and wish to somehow scrub the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam from that legacy.  There really is nothing there to show that Kennedy was ever seriously intending to withdraw troops once it became clear that the war was not going as well as it had originally been perceived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that his intentions are not exactly clear, but that does not mean he would have escalated as the disgusting fool LBJ did.   While I agree that many on the Left want to foolishly believe JFK some kind of liberal saint, I do not think we should conclude from this, that he would have escalated.
> 
> After all, he had sought detente with the USSR and an end to the Cold War, had refused to escalate the Bay of Pigs, resolved the Cuban Missile crisis peacefully over the objections of many in the military, and essentially had very poor relations with the warfare state that encompassed the CIA and the Joint Chiefs.  He fired the scumbag Dulles, who had considerable power within the warfare state and who made no effort to disguise his disgust and hatred of JFK.
> 
> It is obvious the warfare state wanted confrontation with the USSR and opposed JFK's efforts at conciliation.  They also wanted to escalate in Vietnam and feared JFK would not go along with them, but they knew LBJ would do as he was told.
Click to expand...


actually its QUITE clear that he was definetely beyond a doubt going to pull out of the vietnam war completely by 1965.

You know Im sure as well as i do,that like I got done saying,what Jfk and RFK told reporters and what he ACTUALLY did in regards to vietnam,are two different entire things.

Bobby said Jfk was never considered pulling out but he either obviously did not know about the document he signed or he was just telling the american people what  they wanted to hear that he was remaining strong against  communism and committed to  a war there when he really wasnt.

Documents dont lie and and you already know about documents #263 he signed that called for a complete withdrawal by the end of 1965 im sure.

the reaganuts though keep acting like i never posted that fact playing dodgeball with it. evading that fact

yeah he was no saint by any means,like all of us he had his faults but unlike every president since him,there is nothing on the record that proves he was evil and corrupt like there is with reagan.thats what the reaganuts always ignore.

Yeah they knew beyond a doubt that LBJ WOULD do what he was told,to esculate the war because as Im surre you already know,LBJ signed document # 273 two days later that REVERSED jfks policy of pulling out since it called for a return to covert wars for the CIA to run with his phony gulf of tonkin incident him and the govwernment staged.

also after he signed that document,it was no secret he was going to pull out of vietna.there were headlines printed all over the front pages of the pentagons military paper STARS AND STRIPES headlines that read KENNEDY CALLS FOR A COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF VIETNAM BY 1965.thats no theory,thats a FACT,yet we have people here ignoring these facts to arrogant to admit they have been proven wrong that kennedy wasnt goting to pull out of vietnam.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room



too predicatable as always.,when the paid zionist shill is cornered by pesky facts and evidence he cant refute,he evades them running off like the chikenshit coward he is.


----------



## Jroc

9/11 inside job said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too predicatable as always.,when the paid zionist shill is cornered by pesky facts and evidence he cant refute,he evades them running off like the chikenshit coward he is.
Click to expand...


Wrong room.... All your bull has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who let this thread get drailed by thte conspiracy nutjobs?...off topic, wrong room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too predicatable as always.,when the paid zionist shill is cornered by pesky facts and evidence he cant refute,he evades them running off like the chikenshit coward he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong room.... All your bull has nothing to do with the nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...


run coward run.

oh by the way paid zionst shill,you might tell that to your fellow  trolls who brought up lies about JFK after  I shot down crusader retards lies in his avatar that reagan was the last real president we had.

I merely defended  jfk against the lies of you trolls  that he was never going to pull out of vietnam and proved that unlike reagan-the SUBJECT of this thread,JFK was not evil like he was.

you trolls started it,you just cant finish it cause you know you lost the debate and are too much of a bunch of arrogant fucks to admit you did so like  the chickenshot cowards you all are knowing you can hide behind a computer,you are left to throw insults knowing you cant refute the facts and cant face the truth  that you all dont know what you  are talking about.congrats on displaying your hypocrisy.


the ones that have come on here and told the TRUTH about how corrupt reagan was,are the only ones who understand our REAL history and whats going on in the world.

that being said zionist shill.my ignore list grows larger now.have fun meeting it.

you all prove you are trolls in the fact you refuse to answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION i have askedd over a hundred times just coming back with childish insults when i ask it.pathetic.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people glorify dead Presidents the way old people glorify "the good old days". They like to remember the good stuff and convenietly forget or ignore the bad stuff. Lib's have Kennedy and con's have Reagan. Some folks just feel comfortable living in imaginary thoughts and dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Results are results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REAGAN&#8217;S ECONOMIC SUCCESS*
> Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
> &#8226;20 million new jobs were created.
> &#8226;Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> &#8226;The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
> &#8226;The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
> &#8226;Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
> &#8226;Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> &#8226;Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
> &#8226;The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
> &#8226;The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
> &#8226;The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
> &#8226;During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
> &#8226;In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
> &#8226;The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
> (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
> &#8226;The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
> &#8226;The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth&#8211;assets minus liabilities&#8211;of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today&#8217;s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


propaganda results. as always,thanks for displaying your a hypocrite. I love how you reaganuts worship the NET as the truth.  thanks for displaying your hypocrisy.

 only problem with your lies zionest agent,is the book that dante referred you trolls to at the very beginning of this thread sets the record straight and counters your lies you came up with on the net with ACTUAL SOURCES THE AUTHOR  USES FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BACK THEN. actual mainstream media reports published from back then in the 80's in his footnotes which prove that  all that you just posted is pure bullshit and lies. you lose.

you reaganut trolls of course wont read that book and look at the evidence from back then published  because your too arrogant to admit you have been proven wrong.

sorry but actual sources printed back in the 80's talking about the recession and how reagan shipped jobs overseas counters your lies posted on the NET you worship.


you lose loser.


----------



## Jroc

9/11 inside job said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people glorify dead Presidents the way old people glorify "the good old days". They like to remember the good stuff and convenietly forget or ignore the bad stuff. Lib's have Kennedy and con's have Reagan. Some folks just feel comfortable living in imaginary thoughts and dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Results are results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REAGANS ECONOMIC SUCCESS*
> Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
> 20 million new jobs were created.
> Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
> The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
> Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
> Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
> The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
> The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
> The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
> During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
> In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
> The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
> (The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
> The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
> The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> propaganda results. as always,thanks for displaying your a hypocrite. I love how you reaganuts worship the NET as the truth.  thanks for displaying your hypocrisy.
> 
> only problem with your lies zionest agent,is the book that dante referred you trolls to at the very beginning of this thread sets the record straight and counters your lies you came up with on the net with ACTUAL SOURCES THE AUTHOR  USES FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BACK THEN. actual mainstream media reports published from back then in the 80's in his footnotes which prove that  all that you just posted is pure bullshit and lies. you lose.
> 
> you reaganut trolls of course wont read that book and look at the evidence from back then published  because your too arrogant to admit you have been proven wrong.
> 
> sorry but actual sources printed back in the 80's talking about the recession and how reagan shipped jobs overseas counters your lies posted on the NET you worship.
> 
> 
> you lose loser.
Click to expand...

Refute the numbers loon, or go back to your Kenedy conspriacy thoeries in the alternet universe that you live in in your basement


----------



## Oldstyle

I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops.  What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments *plan* for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops.  Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam.  Simply because there was a *plan* for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.


----------



## Jroc

Oldstyle said:


> I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops.  What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments *plan* for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops.  Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam.  Simply because there was a *plan* for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.



So whats that have to do with Reagan?


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops.  What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments *plan* for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops.  Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam.  Simply because there was a *plan* for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whats that have to do with Reagan?
Click to expand...


Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.

Happy now?


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops.  What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments *plan* for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops.  Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam.  Simply because there was a *plan* for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whats that have to do with Reagan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
> 
> Happy now?
Click to expand...


Obama has a "doctrine"?  Gee, I always thought to have one of those you had to have a plan in the first place...


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had others try to make the same argument about JFK...citing the same Kennedy request to plan for the withdrawing of US troops.  What people like 9/11 never seem to grasp is that governments *plan* for many different contingencies...Kennedy believing the conflict was being resolved with the communists on the losing side asked for a plan to withdraw troops.  Then he came to realize that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe and the talk turned to what would be the best way to shore up South Vietnam.  Simply because there was a *plan* for a withdraw of US troops doesn't mean Kennedy made that call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whats that have to do with Reagan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
> 
> Happy now?
Click to expand...


Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves


----------



## Oldstyle

I think the Obama Doctrine is "leading from behind"...otherwise known as "I don't have a clue what I'm doing therefore I'm going to do as little as possible".


----------



## Jroc

Oldstyle said:


> I think the Obama Doctrine is "leading from behind"...otherwise known as "I don't have a clue what I'm doing therefore I'm going to do as little as possible".



Our intelligence apparatus was rebuilt by Bush.... Obama is reaping the benefits


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whats that have to do with Reagan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
> 
> Happy now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
Click to expand...


You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best.  The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.


----------



## Meathead

_A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
Lech Walesa
President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize

GDANSK, Poland &#8212; When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can&#8217;t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let&#8217;s remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They&#8217;re convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.

Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time &#8212; a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn&#8217;t fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *

I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, &#8220;High Noon.&#8221; Under the headline &#8220;At High Noon&#8221; runs the red Solidarity banner and the date &#8212; June 4, 1989 &#8212; of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the &#8220;Wild&#8221; West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn&#8217;t express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world. 
And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.

Lech Walesa  _

Lech Walesa on Reagan, Valley Patriot




Of course, you would know more.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> _A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
> Lech Walesa
> President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
> 
> GDANSK, Poland  When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This cant be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Lets remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. Theyre convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.
> 
> Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time  a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didnt fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *
> 
> I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, High Noon. Under the headline At High Noon runs the red Solidarity banner and the date  June 4, 1989  of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the Wild West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didnt express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world.
> And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
> 
> Lech Walesa  _
> 
> Lech Walesa on Reagan, Valley Patriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you would know more.



This is a tribute to Reagan. Even in the tribute other names are mentioned that helped bring about the fall of the USSR. Reagan was a force in helping to bring down the USSR, but he wasn't the only one. I have been to Eastern Europe many times. I have friends there. I often stay in their homes in towns and cities that few westerners visit. A tribute speech does not counter the many conversations I have had with the everyday people I have had the oppurtunity to discuss this issue with at length.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
> 
> Happy now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
> Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
> The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best.  The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
Click to expand...


Regan, Maggie Thatcher and pope John Paul.brought down the Soviet Empire .while the liberal nutjobs undermined him whenever they could




> In his new book, &#8220;The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,&#8221; Grove City College professor Paul Kengor sheds light on a letter written by KGB head Viktor Chebrikov to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov. The letter is dated May 14, 1983, right as the debate was heating up over Mr. Reagan&#8217;s proposed deployment of intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter the Soviets&#8217; medium-range rockets in Eastern Europe.
> 
> Most Democrats and much of the left were universally opposed to Mr. Reagan&#8217;s plan, which they argued would lead to nuclear war. Heading the list of critics was Mr. Kennedy, who had, according to the Soviet letter, sent former Sen. John V. Tunney to meet with Kremlin leaders. Chebrikov writes that Mr. Kennedy &#8220;charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to&#8230; Andropov.&#8221;
> 
> According to the letter, Mr. Kennedy was concerned with &#8220;Reagan&#8217;s belligerence,&#8221; which he felt was in part the result of the president&#8217;s popularity. &#8220;The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,&#8221; wrote Chebrikov, relaying Mr. Tunney&#8217;s message. &#8220;These issues, according to [Mr. Kennedy], will without a doubt become the most important of the [1984] election campaign.&#8221;
> 
> The letter goes on to say how Mr. Kennedy felt that the Soviets&#8217; peaceful intentions were being &#8220;quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted.&#8221; Conversely, Mr. Reagan &#8220;has the capabilities to counter any propaganda.&#8221; In other words, if the letter is to be believed, Mr. Kennedy felt his own president was the real aggressor




Kennedy-KGB collaboration - Washington Times


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> _A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
> Lech Walesa
> President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
> 
> GDANSK, Poland &#8212; When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can&#8217;t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let&#8217;s remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They&#8217;re convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.
> 
> Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time &#8212; a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn&#8217;t fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *
> 
> I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, &#8220;High Noon.&#8221; Under the headline &#8220;At High Noon&#8221; runs the red Solidarity banner and the date &#8212; June 4, 1989 &#8212; of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the &#8220;Wild&#8221; West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn&#8217;t express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world.
> And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
> 
> Lech Walesa  _
> 
> Lech Walesa on Reagan, Valley Patriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you would know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a tribute to Reagan. Even in the tribute other names are mentioned that helped bring about the fall of the USSR. Reagan was a force in helping to bring down the USSR, but he wasn't the only one. I have been to Eastern Europe many times. I have friends there. I often stay in their homes in towns and cities that few westerners visit. A tribute speech does not counter the many conversations I have had with the everyday people I have had the oppurtunity to discuss this issue with at length.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I of course who have lived in Prague since 1996 have not had a chance to do so. I iwill take the word of people I know and the likes of Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa over some neophyte trustafarian. I'm funny that way I guess.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> _A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
> Lech Walesa
> President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize
> 
> GDANSK, Poland  When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This cant be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Lets remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. Theyre convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.
> 
> Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time  a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didnt fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *
> 
> I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, High Noon. Under the headline At High Noon runs the red Solidarity banner and the date  June 4, 1989  of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the Wild West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didnt express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world.
> And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
> 
> Lech Walesa  _
> 
> Lech Walesa on Reagan, Valley Patriot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you would know more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a tribute to Reagan. Even in the tribute other names are mentioned that helped bring about the fall of the USSR. Reagan was a force in helping to bring down the USSR, but he wasn't the only one. I have been to Eastern Europe many times. I have friends there. I often stay in their homes in towns and cities that few westerners visit. A tribute speech does not counter the many conversations I have had with the everyday people I have had the oppurtunity to discuss this issue with at length.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and I of course who have lived in Prague since 1996 have not had a chance to do so. I iwill take the word of people I know and the likes of Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa over some neophyte trustafarian. I'm funny that way I guess.
Click to expand...


My viewpoints are not that far off from Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa. Credit for the fall of the USSR are shared by many factors and the degree or importance for each factor is a matter of personel opinion. Most of the Reagan fans on this board choose to ignore all the other factors and give complete and total credit to Reagan. Would the USSR have fallen without Reagan? Would it have fallen without Walesa?


----------



## Meathead

I don't think anyone is claiming that Reagan single-handed brought down the USSR, but he was unquestionably an integral part. Reagan's agenda was not one of detente as had been his predecessors. Gorbachov had no intention of dissolving the USSR, that was squarely Reagan's. And Reagan prevailed.

The attempts to belittle his role and his accomplishments in this regard are doomed to failure. He was a giant surrounded by midgets of presidential history.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Jroc said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Results are results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> propaganda results. as always,thanks for displaying your a hypocrite. I love how you reaganuts worship the NET as the truth.  thanks for displaying your hypocrisy.
> 
> only problem with your lies zionest agent,is the book that dante referred you trolls to at the very beginning of this thread sets the record straight and counters your lies you came up with on the net with ACTUAL SOURCES THE AUTHOR  USES FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BACK THEN. actual mainstream media reports published from back then in the 80's in his footnotes which prove that  all that you just posted is pure bullshit and lies. you lose.
> 
> you reaganut trolls of course wont read that book and look at the evidence from back then published  because your too arrogant to admit you have been proven wrong.
> 
> sorry but actual sources printed back in the 80's talking about the recession and how reagan shipped jobs overseas counters your lies posted on the NET you worship.
> 
> 
> you lose loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refute the numbers loon, or go back to your Kenedy conspriacy thoeries in the alternet universe that you live in in your basement
Click to expand...


for the hundreth time agent troll,dante as well as i have over a hundred times on this thread,referred you to the book in his opening post WITH ACTUAL SOURCES from the 80's  proving there was a HUGE  recession back then and actual sources that prove everything i have been saying as well.

Its not MY fault your too much of a chickenshit coward to read the book. oh and i have posted several links-"which again is something that I am against, which is why i refer people to books"  that shoot down your ramblings too many times to remember,not my fault your too much of a chickenshit coward to read my links.

as always,here you are trolling,you idiot trolls came on and laughed at me when i explained that the mainstream media is controlled by the CIA and when i gave a link with actual HIGH RANKING PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT talking about how corrupt the CIA is such as Harry Truman and JFK, and showed a video in that link  of congress having a   hearing about it and even mentioned a book written by  a former deputy director admitting they have plants in workplaces and in the media as well as referring you to links that back up that book dante referenced for you,like the chickenshit coward you are,you ran away from that post of mine not reading it and REFUSE to read that book dante referenced you to in the beginning.

I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again to you trolls cause you wont address the MAJORITY of my posts or answer one simple question i have asked over a hundred time idiot.hahhahahahahahahahahahaahaaa

not my fault your too much of a chickenshit coward to read that book dante referenced to you on his very first post on this thread or read my links that shoot down your lies.

oh and agagin you show you have memeory and reading comprehension problems as well and what a hypocrite you are.anytime i post links that shoot down your lies,like the chickenshit coward you are,you run away and come back with pathetic one liner insults.

your so transparent that your an agent zionist shill sent here to try and derail truth discussions about government corruption like the idiot you are,you ADVERTISE it here.hahahahahahahahahaahahaaaa

not going to keep playing your game troll posting links and information just to watch you run away from it EVERY TIME like the chickenshit coward you are.

this i promise will be my last post with you giving you the attention you seek.

have fun talking to yourself zionist shill.

you trolls laughed  at me when I first came on here when i  made the point you all have been brainwashed by the CIA,then i make a post that PROVES i am correct about it,that they do have plants in the CIA, you all then  run off like the cowards you are changing the subject.

you reaganut trolls can start something,but you cant finish it.

everytime i answer your lies with facts,you evade them running away from them changing the  the subject everytime like the cowards you all are.again you can start something,but you cant finish it.you just come back with childish one liners knowing you are cornered. then when I post something from the net,you cowards dismiss it and run away from it.you know it,i know it.

when your proven wrong about something you said,you all evade the facts i posted and whine saying its not about the topic even though YOU all were saying i was a loony for saying it to be true0 what a bunch of fucking whiners and cowards you all are.

your not worth wasting anymore of my time on.I've wasted enough on you trolls as it is.

Like i said,you trolls are so predictable what you will post next you all are a joke.hahahahaa. must suck being you fools when you are so easy to predict.



Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.

Happy now?[/QUOTE]


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
> 
> Happy now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
> Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
> The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best.  The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
Click to expand...


as i said before camp,dont waste you time with this zionist shill.He is just seeking attention.

Him and all these reaganuts wont even answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION  I HAVE ASKED OVER A HUNDRED TIMES ON THIS THREAD. and just comes back with insults when you challenge him to read a book that refutes his lies.

you've heard the old saying before.




its advise i plan on following for now on.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
> 
> Happy now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
> Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
> The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best.  The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
Click to expand...




thanks to thatA-hole  evil bastard,we have the mess in nicuragua now that started back then and has remained there ever since.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's still using the Bush doctrine...Reagan defeated the Soviet Empire and kept the muslim nutjobs fighting themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
> Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
> The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best.  The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as i said before camp,dont waste you time with this zionist shill.He is just seeking attention.
> 
> Him and all these reaganuts wont even answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION  I HAVE ASKED OVER A HUNDRED TIMES ON THIS THREAD. and just comes back with insults when you challenge him to read a book that refutes his lies.
> 
> you've heard the old saying before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its advise i plan on following for now on.
Click to expand...


Don't be concerned with the trolls or insults or the nonsense, I'm not. This thread gets a large amount of views lately. The comment vs. view indicates alot of people reading the post and not making comments. Rather than ignore the trolls, one can troll them back. It's ok because it gives oppurtunity to answer some of the more outragious or stupid stuff that gets posted. It also gives oppurtunity to make points that may be buried many pages back. You may make a post, but if a few days go by those points may not get made to new viewers The shills make things entertaining and they allow one to hammer points home time and again. They are useful. If one is confident in ones position the bs doesn't matter. People see through it and can determine on their own what makes sense and what doesn't.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11's view that John F. Kennedy was a liberal "saint" is rather amusing.  Kennedy did a LOT of saber rattling during his short stint as President.  Bay of Pigs...Berlin airlift..."advisers" to Vietnam...a naval embargo of Cuba?  The "man" was nothing like the "myth" that liberals have constructed since his death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your worshipping of that evil bastard reagan and evading facts how evil and corrupt he was refusing to address them is whats amusing.
> 
> your such a troll you ignore FACTS that the CIA lied to him from the very beginning and all they way through the whole bay of pigs invasion when it was going on that because of their lies,afterwards,he dired dulles and bissel for their blatant lies to him knowing it was going to be a disaster. if you had a brain,you would know the plan they presented to kenendy on the bay of pigs was VASTLY different than the one they presented to eisenhower and the reason they altered when they presented it to kennedy was cause it was designed to suceed under their buddy Nixon whom ran covert wars for the CIA as vp under eisenhower.why do you think nixon in his white house tapes kept referring to that hunt scab in the bay of pigs invasion when that had nothing to do with watergate?
> 
> it was because he really meant the kenendy assassination thing since hunt was involved in the bay of pigs invasion.oh and hunt after lying for years about being in dallas,even CONFESSED later on in a tape recoreder to his son on his deathbed he in fact WAS in dealy plaza as an operation to kill kennedy.i posted the video before,but liek the trolls you all are,you ignored it.
> 
> oh and even a couple of nixons white house aides wrote a book saying thats what nixon was referring to was the kenendy assassination.guess they are tin foil hatters though?
> 
> allen dulles who kenendy fired after the bay of pigs invasion was appoinented on the warren commission by Lyndon johnson who got to handpick them all.no bias of an investigation there. johnson wasnt even investigated and should have been a prime suspect since he had more to gain by the assassiantion that anybody.
> 
> oh and you cripple your arguments with your OWN words and help me win my case against you trolls everytime with your own words.
> 
> the fact kennedy only sent in ADVISORS and NEVER combat troops.even PBS has acknowledged that fact. johnson reversed kennedys policy on the gulf of tonkin incident.
> 
> oh and remember where i said even the commander of that ship and mcnamara have come forward and confessed that johnson lied,that the vietcong never fired on them? playing dodgeball as always.
> 
> only an idiot would deny that when Dulles got the phone call from Johnson to be on the warren commission,that he wasnt out celebrating that night knowing he got the last laugh on kennedy able to rewrite history like he did.
> 
> no biased investigation by the warren commssion there with THAT appointment.
> 
> 
> OH and I ALSO noticed how you EVADED the facts in this link here  in post #323 on this page below  with overwhelming proof that the CIA has plants in the media.you might want to watch that video in this link here on page
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-22.html
> where congress talks about it in that video on that link and not ignore what some very prominent people in government have said about them as well in that link.
Click to expand...


not only does THIS post but so many posts i have posted throughout this thread only to watch the facts go ignored prove that the CIA killed kenendy cause he was going to pull out vietnam and knew they could trust johnson to give them the war they wanted,but the other thing that proves beyond a doubt he was going to pull out of vietnam is not only that newspaper the stars and stripes saying so in their headlines,and not only the document he signed 2 months before his assassination"you trolls cant face facts documents dont lie." and cant face facts johnsons document two days later reversed his policy.

but besides the other posts i have made throughout this whole entire thread  that clearly showed he was going to pull out completely by 1965,besides those,and as i said a hundred times before his two closest aides saying he told them he had to wait till after the election when he was reelected to pull out completely by the end of 1965,but again his ACTIONS he took prove it as well in the FACT-"which troll oldstyle will ignore", is two days before his assassination,he made good on his promise and his advise senator mansfield and Mcnamara gave him,issuing a directive that called for the first 1,000 of the 12,000 stationed at the time,to come home by the end of christmas 1963.

trolls like oldstyle and zionist paid shill jroc cant face FACTS that as a politician,he had to have Bobby say things to the american people that he was never going to pull out of vietnam to make it look like he was strong against communism and committed to the war but behind the scenes,he was making due on his word to his two closest aides that he was going to pull out completely by 1965 by GRADUALLY pulling out little by little with his first directive of a thousand troop deploya by the end of 1963.

troll Oldstyle doesnt understand that as a policiticn,he couldnt just pull them out completely at one time and expect to be relected by the american people. that he had to do it gradually a few thousand at a time.

the reganut trolls here are left to y whine and cry and defeat and sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.

Its clearly impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with the reganut trolls here so i wont do thei anymore with them.



advise i plan to follow for now on.thank god for the ignore list.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
> Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
> The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best.  The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before camp,dont waste you time with this zionist shill.He is just seeking attention.
> 
> Him and all these reaganuts wont even answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION  I HAVE ASKED OVER A HUNDRED TIMES ON THIS THREAD. and just comes back with insults when you challenge him to read a book that refutes his lies.
> 
> you've heard the old saying before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its advise i plan on following for now on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be concerned with the trolls or insults or the nonsense, I'm not. This thread gets a large amount of views lately. The comment vs. view indicates alot of people reading the post and not making comments. Rather than ignore the trolls, one can troll them back. It's ok because it gives oppurtunity to answer some of the more outragious or stupid stuff that gets posted. It also gives oppurtunity to make points that may be buried many pages back. You may make a post, but if a few days go by those points may not get made to new viewers The shills make things entertaining and they allow one to hammer points home time and again. They are useful. If one is confident in ones position the bs doesn't matter. People see through it and can determine on their own what makes sense and what doesn't.
Click to expand...


True,It is amusing watching them run off with their tail between their legs not addressing the majority of the posts you make. the rational objective open minded posters coming on here who are curious,unlike them,will take the time to read that book that dante referrenced in his beginning post and will see that the myth of reagan has been exposed once they read it.

they will see that the trolls ignore the majority of your posts when you prove them wrong you post and wont adress them and will see they wont even answer one simple question i have asked over a hundred times.

well I myself have gotten tired of repeating the same thing over and over again just to see it get ignored and not addressed so i m not going to bother with them anymore.If you can tolerate their stupidity,then all means hang around.

Like I said,im done with them,its gets tiresome having to repeat the same thing over and over  and over again just ot watch them  ignore it act like i never mentioned it.


----------



## Jroc

9/11 inside job said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> propaganda results. as always,thanks for displaying your a hypocrite. I love how you reaganuts worship the NET as the truth.  thanks for displaying your hypocrisy.
> 
> only problem with your lies zionest agent,is the book that dante referred you trolls to at the very beginning of this thread sets the record straight and counters your lies you came up with on the net with ACTUAL SOURCES THE AUTHOR  USES FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BACK THEN. actual mainstream media reports published from back then in the 80's in his footnotes which prove that  all that you just posted is pure bullshit and lies. you lose.
> 
> you reaganut trolls of course wont read that book and look at the evidence from back then published  because your too arrogant to admit you have been proven wrong.
> 
> sorry but actual sources printed back in the 80's talking about the recession and how reagan shipped jobs overseas counters your lies posted on the NET you worship.
> 
> 
> you lose loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Refute the numbers loon, or go back to your Kenedy conspriacy thoeries in the alternet universe that you live in in your basement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for the hundreth time agent troll,dante as well as i have over a hundred times on this thread,referred you to the book in his opening post WITH ACTUAL SOURCES from the 80's  proving there was a HUGE  recession back then and actual sources that prove everything i have been saying as well.
> 
> Its not MY fault your too much of a chickenshit coward to read the book. oh and i have posted several links-"which again is something that I am against, which is why i refer people to books"  that shoot down your ramblings too many times to remember,not my fault your too much of a chickenshit coward to read my links.
> 
> as always,here you are trolling,you idiot trolls came on and laughed at me when i explained that the mainstream media is controlled by the CIA and when i gave a link with actual HIGH RANKING PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT talking about how corrupt the CIA is such as Harry Truman and JFK, and showed a video in that link  of congress having a   hearing about it and even mentioned a book written by  a former deputy director admitting they have plants in workplaces and in the media as well as referring you to links that back up that book dante referenced for you,like the chickenshit coward you are,you ran away from that post of mine not reading it and REFUSE to read that book dante referenced you to in the beginning.
> 
> I have to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again to you trolls cause you wont address the MAJORITY of my posts or answer one simple question i have asked over a hundred time idiot.hahhahahahahahahahahahaahaaa
> 
> not my fault your too much of a chickenshit coward to read that book dante referenced to you on his very first post on this thread or read my links that shoot down your lies.
> 
> oh and agagin you show you have memeory and reading comprehension problems as well and what a hypocrite you are.anytime i post links that shoot down your lies,like the chickenshit coward you are,you run away and come back with pathetic one liner insults.
> 
> your so transparent that your an agent zionist shill sent here to try and derail truth discussions about government corruption like the idiot you are,you ADVERTISE it here.hahahahahahahahahaahahaaaa
> 
> not going to keep playing your game troll posting links and information just to watch you run away from it EVERY TIME like the chickenshit coward you are.
> 
> this i promise will be my last post with you giving you the attention you seek.
> 
> have fun talking to yourself zionist shill.
> 
> you trolls laughed  at me when I first came on here when i  made the point you all have been brainwashed by the CIA,then i make a post that PROVES i am correct about it,that they do have plants in the CIA, you all then  run off like the cowards you are changing the subject.
> 
> you reaganut trolls can start something,but you cant finish it.
> 
> everytime i answer your lies with facts,you evade them running away from them changing the  the subject everytime like the cowards you all are.again you can start something,but you cant finish it.you just come back with childish one liners knowing you are cornered. then when I post something from the net,you cowards dismiss it and run away from it.you know it,i know it.
> 
> when your proven wrong about something you said,you all evade the facts i posted and whine saying its not about the topic even though YOU all were saying i was a loony for saying it to be true0 what a bunch of fucking whiners and cowards you all are.
> 
> your not worth wasting anymore of my time on.I've wasted enough on you trolls as it is.
> 
> Like i said,you trolls are so predictable what you will post next you all are a joke.hahahahaa. must suck being you fools when you are so easy to predict.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank goodness Ronald Reagan is not in charge of the war on terrorism and his policies towards terrorism have been abandoned. He would be selling weapons to some terrorist supporting county so he could make backroom deals with the various terror organizations like he did in the 80's. Yippie for the new Obama Doctrine of chasing the fuckers down and killing or capturing them. Yippie for Navy SEALS and robots in the sky.
> 
> Happy now?
Click to expand...


[/QUOTE]

Your posts are schizophrenic... Take your medication before you post. Nobody&#8217;s going to read all that gibberish


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just making things up. Bush threw out any semblance of a doctrine when he invaded Iraq. He even threw out the Powell Doctrine when he invaded Irag. Terrorist groups flourished under both Bush and Reagan. They grew in size and ability to attack western nations and their allies in Africa and Asia.
> Reagan getting all the credit for defeating the Soviet Union is hotly debated in the countries that were freed by the collapse of the USSR. They give credit to the massisve demonstations they conducted, the influence of the Pope and Catholic Church, the nationwide strikes and the threat that the USSR would have to remilitarize Eastern Europe with occupations forces rather than the purely defensive/offenseive forces based in those countries.
> The claim that Reagan had the "muslim nutjobs" fighting each other is erroneous at best.  The war between Irag and Iran and the way Reagan interfered left scars and problems that would leed to many of the difficulties we face today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before camp,dont waste you time with this zionist shill.He is just seeking attention.
> 
> Him and all these reaganuts wont even answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION  I HAVE ASKED OVER A HUNDRED TIMES ON THIS THREAD. and just comes back with insults when you challenge him to read a book that refutes his lies.
> 
> you've heard the old saying before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its advise i plan on following for now on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be concerned with the trolls or insults or the nonsense, I'm not. This thread gets a large amount of views lately. The comment vs. view indicates alot of people reading the post and not making comments. Rather than ignore the trolls, one can troll them back. It's ok because it gives oppurtunity to answer some of the more outragious or stupid stuff that gets posted. It also gives oppurtunity to make points that may be buried many pages back. You may make a post, but if a few days go by those points may not get made to new viewers The shills make things entertaining and they allow one to hammer points home time and again. They are useful. If one is confident in ones position the bs doesn't matter. People see through it and can determine on their own what makes sense and what doesn't.
Click to expand...


The point is while the liberal communist sympathizer nutjobs worked against Reagan and Thatcher. they stuck to their guns and 10s of millions of people are free from the Soviet Empire because of it  



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> as i said before camp,dont waste you time with this zionist shill.He is just seeking attention.
> 
> Him and all these reaganuts wont even answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION  I HAVE ASKED OVER A HUNDRED TIMES ON THIS THREAD. and just comes back with insults when you challenge him to read a book that refutes his lies.
> 
> you've heard the old saying before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its advise i plan on following for now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be concerned with the trolls or insults or the nonsense, I'm not. This thread gets a large amount of views lately. The comment vs. view indicates alot of people reading the post and not making comments. Rather than ignore the trolls, one can troll them back. It's ok because it gives oppurtunity to answer some of the more outragious or stupid stuff that gets posted. It also gives oppurtunity to make points that may be buried many pages back. You may make a post, but if a few days go by those points may not get made to new viewers The shills make things entertaining and they allow one to hammer points home time and again. They are useful. If one is confident in ones position the bs doesn't matter. People see through it and can determine on their own what makes sense and what doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True,It is amusing watching them run off with their tail between their legs not addressing the majority of the posts you make. the rational objective open minded posters coming on here who are curious,unlike them,will take the time to read that book that dante referrenced in his beginning post and will see that the myth of reagan has been exposed once they read it.
> 
> they will see that the trolls ignore the majority of your posts when you prove them wrong you post and wont adress them and will see they wont even answer one simple question i have asked over a hundred times.
> 
> well I myself have gotten tired of repeating the same thing over and over again just to see it get ignored and not addressed so i m not going to bother with them anymore.If you can tolerate their stupidity,then all means hang around.
> 
> Like I said,im done with them,its gets tiresome having to repeat the same thing over and over  and over again just ot watch them  ignore it act like i never mentioned it.
Click to expand...


I don't see anyone "running" from the nonsense you post, 9/11.  I certainly haven't.  As I stated earlier...I think you get the majority of your facts from questionable conspiracy web sites...sites that struggle to back up their theories with plausible facts.

You'll end up putting people on ignore because you don't have an intelligent response to them pointing out the huge holes in your conspiracy theories...not because they haven't "answered" your questions.


----------



## Jroc

Oldstyle said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be concerned with the trolls or insults or the nonsense, I'm not. This thread gets a large amount of views lately. The comment vs. view indicates alot of people reading the post and not making comments. Rather than ignore the trolls, one can troll them back. It's ok because it gives oppurtunity to answer some of the more outragious or stupid stuff that gets posted. It also gives oppurtunity to make points that may be buried many pages back. You may make a post, but if a few days go by those points may not get made to new viewers The shills make things entertaining and they allow one to hammer points home time and again. They are useful. If one is confident in ones position the bs doesn't matter. People see through it and can determine on their own what makes sense and what doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True,It is amusing watching them run off with their tail between their legs not addressing the majority of the posts you make. the rational objective open minded posters coming on here who are curious,unlike them,will take the time to read that book that dante referrenced in his beginning post and will see that the myth of reagan has been exposed once they read it.
> 
> they will see that the trolls ignore the majority of your posts when you prove them wrong you post and wont adress them and will see they wont even answer one simple question i have asked over a hundred times.
> 
> well I myself have gotten tired of repeating the same thing over and over again just to see it get ignored and not addressed so i m not going to bother with them anymore.If you can tolerate their stupidity,then all means hang around.
> 
> Like I said,im done with them,its gets tiresome having to repeat the same thing over and over  and over again just ot watch them  ignore it act like i never mentioned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anyone "running" from the nonsense you post, 9/11.  I certainly haven't.  As I stated earlier...I think you get the majority of your facts from questionable conspiracy web sites...sites that struggle to back up their theories with plausible facts.
> 
> You'll end up putting people on ignore because you don't have an intelligent response to them pointing out the huge holes in your conspiracy theories...not because they haven't "answered" your questions.
Click to expand...


This is what he wants to derail the thread with his stupidity


----------



## Oldstyle

My prediction is that 9/11 will do what most conspiracy theorists do when their theories are debunked...lash out.  It's what you do when you can't argue a viewpoint with reason.


----------



## antique4xpu

president reagan turned over americans to sen. joe mccarthys inquisition long before he ran for anything

against the law , he traded arms for hostages

dick cheney said it would have been terribly wrong to have occupied iraq after the first gulf war ,
but he forgot his own advice later when little george was president


----------



## Meathead

antique4xpu said:


> president reagan turned over americans to sen. joe mccarthys inquisition long before he ran for anything
> 
> against the law , he traded arms for hostages
> 
> dick cheney said it would have been terribly wrong to have occupied iraq after the first gulf war ,
> but he forgot his own advice later when little george was president


If there ever is a "ding bat" historical revision of history, then you may seem quite prophetic. Until that time, "pathetic" is a far more appropriate description.

When Reagan challenged Gorbachov to "Tear Down this Wall!!", that was history. Indeed, a moment that illustrated the triumph of the West over the failed ideology of communism.  As with the Walls of Jericho, Reagan's trumpets did prevail.


----------



## Camp

As usual with the Reagan worshippers, you do not address one thing that this poster has said. Ofcourse that is because everything he said is accepted fact. He spoke the truth. He pointed out parts of the Reagan history that can not be seriously challanged. You fear that others may continue the discussion on the subjects brought forward, so you deflect and change the subject. You don't want a discussion on how Reagan turned on his friends because he lacked the courage to stand up for them. You don't want to discuss breaking the law and trading arms for hostages because it will lead to the discussion of why he should have been impeached and how he helped terrorism flourish during his administation.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> As usual with the Reagan worshippers, you do not address one thing that this poster has said. Ofcourse that is because everything he said is accepted fact. He spoke the truth. He pointed out parts of the Reagan history that can not be seriously challanged. You fear that others may continue the discussion on the subjects brought forward, so you deflect and change the subject. You don't want a discussion on how Reagan turned on his friends because he lacked the courage to stand up for them. You don't want to discuss breaking the law and trading arms for hostages because it will lead to the discussion of why he should have been impeached and how he helped terrorism flourish during his administation.


We did discuss the "dingbat" historical record, did we not? Give it up, history has little regard for that kind of revisionism. What happened happened, and Reagan's legacy is secure except in the minds of those who despair of the fall of communism.

Good luck with that Camp.


----------



## bendog

Actually, those who contend Reagan saved E. Europe would do well to read Commanding Heights, which btw actually treats he and Thatcher very generously, but includes more economic analysis and less ... myth.  In a nutshell, Thatcherism really did the trick.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual with the Reagan worshippers, you do not address one thing that this poster has said. Ofcourse that is because everything he said is accepted fact. He spoke the truth. He pointed out parts of the Reagan history that can not be seriously challanged. You fear that others may continue the discussion on the subjects brought forward, so you deflect and change the subject. You don't want a discussion on how Reagan turned on his friends because he lacked the courage to stand up for them. You don't want to discuss breaking the law and trading arms for hostages because it will lead to the discussion of why he should have been impeached and how he helped terrorism flourish during his administation.
> 
> 
> 
> We did discuss the "dingbat" historical record, did we not? Give it up, history has little regard for that kind of revisionism. What happened happened, and Reagan's legacy is secure except in the minds of those who despair of the fall of communism.
> 
> Good luck with that Camp.
Click to expand...


Once again an attemp is being made to link what I have posted to another poster about another unrelated topic. 
"We" have not discussed my postings. All I have seen are deflections to the data and comments I have made. I have seen no arguements that the data supplied in my post are faulty. No posters have actually challanged the data I have supplied, or even my brief analysis of that data.
Ronald Reagan's legacy is not as secure as you wish to believe. It's positive and glorifying stature reached it's peak and is now on the down slide. As historians further removed from his time period review the history more accurately and with a more objective stance a more truthful history is being written. His failure in regards to his terrorism policies and his influence in growing the terrorist community is not being ignored.


----------



## Meathead

Does the fact that you got a "thank'"  from 9/11 mean anything to you? Do you understand what is meant by the term of "dingbat"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

antique4xpu said:


> president reagan turned over americans to sen. joe mccarthys inquisition long before he ran for anything
> 
> against the law , he traded arms for hostages
> 
> dick cheney said it would have been terribly wrong to have occupied iraq after the first gulf war ,
> but he forgot his own advice later when little george was president



^ Why you never take LSD before posting on the Internet


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bendog said:


> Actually, those who contend Reagan saved E. Europe would do well to read Commanding Heights, which btw actually treats he and Thatcher very generously, but includes more economic analysis and less ... myth.  In a nutshell, Thatcherism really did the trick.



Uh huh, the Brits helped for sure, but Reagan was the driving force and provided the leadership


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Does the fact that you got a "thank'"  from 9/11 mean anything to you? Do you understand what is meant by the term of "dingbat"?



The fact that Camp got a thankyou form 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with the revisionist history of Ronald Reagan. The fact that you consider this person a "dingbat" has nothing to do with revisionist history of Ronald Reagan. None of that has anything to do with the data and analysis I have given. All you can do is deflect from the topic of of your glorified view of Ronald Reeagan and his dismal failure in regards to his horrible policies towards terrorist and terrorist attacks which gave birth to the rise of terrorism as an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. It was those failed policies that led to the growth of a group that believed the United States could be influenced and terrorized into negotiations. That groups name is al Qaeda. We are still fighting them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the fact that you got a "thank'"  from 9/11 mean anything to you? Do you understand what is meant by the term of "dingbat"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Camp got a thankyou form 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with the revisionist history of Ronald Reagan. The fact that you consider this person a "dingbat" has nothing to do with revisionist history of Ronald Reagan. None of that has anything to do with the data and analysis I have given. All you can do is deflect from the topic of of your glorified view of Ronald Reeagan and his dismal failure in regards to his horrible policies towards terrorist and terrorist attacks which gave birth to the rise of terrorism as an accepted tactic to be used against the United States. It was those failed policies that led to the growth of a group that believed the United States could be influenced and terrorized into negotiations. That groups name is al Qaeda. We are still fighting them.
Click to expand...


they consider anybody a dingbat everytime they get cornered and frustrated with facts they cant refute as you well already know.worshipping the NET as the gospel truth instead of actual sources printed from the 80's you refer them to .

its funny they call people a dingbat when they wont even answer one simple question asked over a hundred times and call you a dingbat when they refuse to look at or address the facts acting like you never posted it and when you address their lies that THEY brought up,get frustrated and say its off topic.they need to look in the mirror when calling someone a dingbat,

they can only cry and sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are frustrated in their defeat.pretending and folling themselves  that documents and articles  from the newspapers in the 80's lie.comedy gold.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

antique4xpu said:


> president reagan turned over americans to sen. joe mccarthys inquisition long before he ran for anything
> 
> against the law , he traded arms for hostages
> 
> dick cheney said it would have been terribly wrong to have occupied iraq after the first gulf war ,
> but he forgot his own advice later when little george was president



the reaganut trolls here will ignore this post and pretend  like you never said this antique.you hang around here long enough on this thread you'll find that out for yourself.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

the truth hurts the reaganut trolls that Calvin Coolidge was the last decent republican president we had.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a tribute to Reagan. Even in the tribute other names are mentioned that helped bring about the fall of the USSR. Reagan was a force in helping to bring down the USSR, but he wasn't the only one. I have been to Eastern Europe many times. I have friends there. I often stay in their homes in towns and cities that few westerners visit. A tribute speech does not counter the many conversations I have had with the everyday people I have had the oppurtunity to discuss this issue with at length.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I of course who have lived in Prague since 1996 have not had a chance to do so. I iwill take the word of people I know and the likes of Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa over some neophyte trustafarian. I'm funny that way I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My viewpoints are not that far off from Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa. Credit for the fall of the USSR are shared by many factors and the degree or importance for each factor is a matter of personel opinion. Most of the Reagan fans on this board choose to ignore all the other factors and give complete and total credit to Reagan. Would the USSR have fallen without Reagan? Would it have fallen without Walesa?
Click to expand...





> *Poland Unveils Statue of Ronald Reagan in Warsaw*
> 
> Former Polish president and anti-communist leader Lech Walesa unveiled a statue of Ronald Reagan on an elegant Warsaw street on Monday, honoring the late U.S. president for inspiring Poland's toppling of communism.
> 
> Poland Unveils Statue of Ronald Reagan in Warsaw | Fox News
> Though Reagan's legacy is mixed in the U.S., across much of central and eastern Europe he is considered the greatest American leader in recent history for challenging the Soviet Union.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> antique4xpu said:
> 
> 
> 
> president reagan turned over americans to sen. joe mccarthys inquisition long before he ran for anything
> 
> against the law , he traded arms for hostages
> 
> dick cheney said it would have been terribly wrong to have occupied iraq after the first gulf war ,
> but he forgot his own advice later when little george was president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reaganut trolls her will ignore this post and pretend  like you never said this antique.you hang around here long enough on this thread you'll find that out for yourself.
Click to expand...


Frank has already made the suggestion that antiue4xpu might be under the influence of LSD because of his comment. Ofcourse he won't argue about which part of the comment is untrue, or give an alternative view. He's got nothin', nothin' but a nack for hijacking threads, flaming, trolling deflecting. All stuff any idiot can do. What he can't do is hold an intelligent or even interesting conversation. He's a bullsheetzer.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antique4xpu said:
> 
> 
> 
> president reagan turned over americans to sen. joe mccarthys inquisition long before he ran for anything
> 
> against the law , he traded arms for hostages
> 
> dick cheney said it would have been terribly wrong to have occupied iraq after the first gulf war ,
> but he forgot his own advice later when little george was president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reaganut trolls her will ignore this post and pretend  like you never said this antique.you hang around here long enough on this thread you'll find that out for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank has already made the suggestion that antiue4xpu might be under the influence of LSD because of his comment. Ofcourse he won't argue about which part of the comment is untrue, or give an alternative view. He's got nothin', nothin' but a nack for hijacking threads, flaming, trolling deflecting. All stuff any idiot can do. What he can't do is hold an intelligent or even interesting conversation. He's a bullsheetzer.
Click to expand...


No surprise to hear that. typical post from Crusader Retard.everytime he is cornered,like them all,he slings shit in defeat like the moneky troll he is.

maybe if i say that enough time it will register with him.

highly doubt it though since you nothing registers with someone on crack.


----------



## Camp

Let's hope this new privately funded Reagan statue doesn't get vandalized like the last one.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Let's hope this new privately funded Reagan statue doesn't get vandalized like the last one.



you just know these reaganut worshippers cried the first time it happened and will again if it DOES happen again. especially Reagans distant cousin Crusader Retard.


----------



## antique4xpu

ignoring the parts of history that you do not like is not very american

i suppose you ignore the conviction of oliver north as well 

to pick and choose facts is  not very honest ....... but then you are connedservatives and unable to do differently

after-all , you made a promise to "rush" and "faux news"


----------



## bendog

CrusaderFrank said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, those who contend Reagan saved E. Europe would do well to read Commanding Heights, which btw actually treats he and Thatcher very generously, but includes more economic analysis and less ... myth.  In a nutshell, Thatcherism really did the trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh, the Brits helped for sure, but Reagan was the driving force and provided the leadership
Click to expand...


Economically, it was the US's embrace of low rates and market based capital allocation, along with the tech revolution, that collapsed the soviet economy.  Reagan of course was part of that.

Star Wars was the nail in the coffin.  Budget wise, the soviets only response would have been to restart the missle race, because missles were relatively cheap ... compared to missle defense.  And for the soviets to base an entire defense against a first strike by nato on an assumption star wars couldn't work ....

Gorbachav was broke.  He sued for peace.

That's not a Reagan diss.  But both the left and the right like to focus on some military resolution.  That detracts from the fact that Reagan, unlike Nixon and the dems, found mutually assured distruction morally repulsive.  The common wisdom is that Reagan and Goldwater were some kind of mad bombers.  It's untrue.  And that doesn't mean Ike and JFK were mere pikers.  They wanted some alternative as well.


----------



## Oldstyle

antique4xpu said:


> ignoring the parts of history that you do not like is not very american
> 
> i suppose you ignore the conviction of oliver north as well
> 
> to pick and choose facts is  not very honest ....... but then you are connedservatives and unable to do differently
> 
> after-all , you made a promise to "rush" and "faux news"



I'm curious, Antique...do you hold FDR to the same standard as you hold Reagan?  Or is it only conservatives that break the law in your view?


----------



## bendog

FDR's violation of the Neutrality Act is errily similar to Reagan and the contras .... though to my knowledge the Brits didn't rape and murder any nuns.


----------



## Oldstyle

You know your history, Ben...I somehow doubt most progressive do when it comes to FDR.


----------



## JoeB131

Dante said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
Click to expand...


The problem with Reagan is that he's really the only President that the GOP can point to since Ike that they aren't embarrassed by. 

Nixon was impeached, Ford was a bumbler, Bush-41 was run out of town on a rail and Bush-43 messed up, well, just about everything.  

So they only guy they have who walked out of the White House with his dignity intact is Reagan.  

And he did it be being EXACTLY the oppossite of what the TEA Party is.  

He negotiated deals with the Democrats.  If he nominated someone who was unacceptable like Bork, he reeled it back by nominating a Kennedy.  

So conservatives don't want to taut his legislation, such as revamping Social Security to keep it solvent for another generation or granting amnesty to 3 million illegals, but just the pretty speeches like "Tear Down This Wall".


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with Reagan is that he's really the only President that the GOP can point to since Ike that they aren't embarrassed by.
> 
> Nixon was impeached, Ford was a bumbler, Bush-41 was run out of town on a rail and Bush-43 messed up, well, just about everything.
> 
> So they only guy they have who walked out of the White House with his dignity intact is Reagan.
> 
> And he did it be being EXACTLY the oppossite of what the TEA Party is.
> 
> He negotiated deals with the Democrats.  If he nominated someone who was unacceptable like Bork, he reeled it back by nominating a Kennedy.
> 
> So conservatives don't want to taut his legislation, such as revamping Social Security to keep it solvent for another generation or granting amnesty to 3 million illegals, but just the pretty speeches like "Tear Down This Wall".
Click to expand...

You have to go back to JFK for a president the dems can boast about, especially now with BO in office.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> ]You have to go back to JFK for a president the dems can boast about, especially now with BO in office.



History is going to be very kind to Obama.  

History is already looking back on Clinton pretty well.  

One only need to look at the last round of conventions.  The Bushes were nowhere to be seen at the RNC, but Clinton was the highlight of the night for the Democrats.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]You have to go back to JFK for a president the dems can boast about, especially now with BO in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History is going to be very kind to Obama.
> 
> History is already looking back on Clinton pretty well.
> 
> One only need to look at the last round of conventions.  The Bushes were nowhere to be seen at the RNC, but Clinton was the highlight of the night for the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I remember your Zimmerman predictions. ROTFLMAO!

Anyway, Clinton will always be remembered as competent, but a sleaze. Obama will be remembered for incompetence which rivaled Carter's. He's a lame duck who had no business being president in the first place. It is no longer much of a secrete.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]You have to go back to JFK for a president the dems can boast about, especially now with BO in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History is going to be very kind to Obama.
> 
> History is already looking back on Clinton pretty well.
> 
> One only need to look at the last round of conventions.  The Bushes were nowhere to be seen at the RNC, but Clinton was the highlight of the night for the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember your Zimmerman predictions. ROTFLMAO!
> 
> Anyway, Clinton will always be remembered as competent, but a sleaze. Obama will be remembered for incompetence which rivaled Carter's. He's a lame duck who had no business being president in the first place. It is no longer much of a secrete.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm glad my predictions of race riots didn't happen when an all white jury acquitted a white man of murdering a black child.  

This time. 

Again, Clinton was roundly welcomed at his convention, and they'll probably nominate his wife next time. 

meanwhile, the Republicans can't hide the Bush family in the attic fast enough.  

But they do have Reagan.  If you just forget all the things Reagan actually did and only focus on the pretty speeches.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> History is going to be very kind to Obama.
> 
> History is already looking back on Clinton pretty well.
> 
> One only need to look at the last round of conventions.  The Bushes were nowhere to be seen at the RNC, but Clinton was the highlight of the night for the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember your Zimmerman predictions. ROTFLMAO!
> 
> Anyway, Clinton will always be remembered as competent, but a sleaze. Obama will be remembered for incompetence which rivaled Carter's. He's a lame duck who had no business being president in the first place. It is no longer much of a secrete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm glad my predictions of race riots didn't happen when an all white jury acquitted a white man of murdering a black child.
> 
> This time.
> 
> Again, Clinton was roundly welcomed at his convention, and they'll probably nominate his wife next time.
> 
> meanwhile, the Republicans can't hide the Bush family in the attic fast enough.
> 
> But they do have Reagan.  If you just forget all the things Reagan actually did and only focus on the pretty speeches.
Click to expand...

America, nor the world has not forgotten what Reagan did. Lefties are still whining about it 25 years on.

All white jury? Maybe you missed the black Puerto Rican woman whose IQ was a close match with yours. Anyway, you had Zimmerman serving time and getting raped or killed in prison.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4694331699758739&pid=15.1

You really are either disingenuous, stupid or (most likely)  both.


----------



## thanatos144

you see Democrats are upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember your Zimmerman predictions. ROTFLMAO!
> 
> Anyway, Clinton will always be remembered as competent, but a sleaze. Obama will be remembered for incompetence which rivaled Carter's. He's a lame duck who had no business being president in the first place. It is no longer much of a secrete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm glad my predictions of race riots didn't happen when an all white jury acquitted a white man of murdering a black child.
> 
> This time.
> 
> Again, Clinton was roundly welcomed at his convention, and they'll probably nominate his wife next time.
> 
> meanwhile, the Republicans can't hide the Bush family in the attic fast enough.
> 
> But they do have Reagan.  If you just forget all the things Reagan actually did and only focus on the pretty speeches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America, nor the world has not forgotten what Reagan did. Lefties are still whining about it 25 years on.
> 
> All white jury? Maybe you missed the black Puerto Rican woman whose IQ was a close match with yours. Anyway, you had Zimmerman serving time and getting raped or killed in prison.
> 
> You really are either disingenuous, stupid or (most likely)  both.
Click to expand...


So he's going to get killed on the street by a cop or the first black guy who recognizes him. 

The guy will be dead in a year.  He just can't help himself.  Even his wife and lawyers are getting clear of the trainwreck.  

Yeah, a lot of Americans haven't forgotten that Reagan destroyed the middle class and spent us into massive debt.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> you sleep Democrats for upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate



Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.


----------



## Pauli007001

JoeB131 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with Reagan is that he's really the only President that the GOP can point to since Ike that they aren't embarrassed by.
> 
> Nixon was impeached, Ford was a bumbler, Bush-41 was run out of town on a rail and Bush-43 messed up, well, just about everything.
> 
> So they only guy they have who walked out of the White House with his dignity intact is Reagan.
> 
> And he did it be being EXACTLY the oppossite of what the TEA Party is.
> 
> He negotiated deals with the Democrats.  If he nominated someone who was unacceptable like Bork, he reeled it back by nominating a Kennedy.
> 
> So conservatives don't want to taut his legislation, such as revamping Social Security to keep it solvent for another generation or granting amnesty to 3 million illegals, but just the pretty speeches like "Tear Down This Wall".
Click to expand...

More lies loser?


----------



## Pauli007001

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you sleep Democrats for upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
Click to expand...


More lies loser?


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you sleep Democrats for upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
Click to expand...

good lord your teachers really did program you well didnt they?


----------



## editec

What Regan is mostly acclaimed for is the exact opposite of what he really did.

He increased the mational debt, increased the annual deficits, increased the size of government, too.

Not exactly the fiscally conservative POTUS so many of todays younger idealistic cons imagine him as having been, eh?

Reagan was much like Obama in that respect...thgose that love him simple invent his history to suit their opwn goofy prejudices.

Some people think Obama is a liberal, and they're as wrong as those who think Reagan was a conservative.

They are/were both_ advocates of big government working for the wealthy internationalists._


----------



## thanatos144

Yawn


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you sleep Democrats for upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
Click to expand...

A letter from Lech Walesa about Ronald Reagan:


*A Tribute to Ronald Reagan
Lech Walesa
President of Poland from 1990 to 1995, & winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize

GDANSK, Poland  When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This cant be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Lets remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.President Reagan, in a radio address from his ranch on Oct. 9, 1982, announces trade sanctions against Poland in retaliation for the outlawing of Solidarity.I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. Theyre convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for.

Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.The 1980s were a curious time  a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didnt fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.* * *

I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, High Noon. Under the headline At High Noon runs the red Solidarity banner and the date  June 4, 1989  of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the Wild West, especially the U.S.But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didnt express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world. 
And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.

Lech Walesa*

But of course JoeB knows more about the fall of communism then those on the front line.

Loser!


----------



## Jroc

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with Reagan is that he's really the only President that the GOP can point to since Ike that they aren't embarrassed by.
> 
> Nixon was impeached, Ford was a bumbler, Bush-41 was run out of town on a rail and Bush-43 messed up, well, just about everything.
> 
> So they only guy they have who walked out of the White House with his dignity intact is Reagan.
> 
> And he did it be being EXACTLY the oppossite of what the TEA Party is.
> 
> He negotiated deals with the Democrats.  If he nominated someone who was unacceptable like Bork, he reeled it back by nominating a Kennedy.
> 
> So conservatives don't want to taut his legislation, such as revamping Social Security to keep it solvent for another generation or granting amnesty to 3 million illegals, but just the pretty speeches like "Tear Down This Wall".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies loser?
Click to expand...


Liberal haft to lie, if they ever told the truth they lose elections contunually


----------



## thanatos144

Republicans are the party of freeing those oppressed Democrats are the party of Opressing those that were free


----------



## bendog

I voted for BushI three times for potus, and probably would again if he could run.  I personally think Nixon saved Israel from annihilation, and his diplomacy forestalled any possible Soviet expansion when their empire was at its apex, and our military at its nadir.  Ford was inspirationally courageous, and sacraficed his own presidency to end Watergate, and God knows he was better than Carter.

If you want to give Reagan a pass for the deficits, and nearly starting WWIII with his rhetoric, the way is that our military in NATO was so illequipped and lacking moral and discipline following LBJ's SE Asia mis-adventure, Reagan had to build up the conventional forces and actually give the Europeans the means to respond to any nuclear assault with a massive strike even w/o the US,  BEFORE reinstituting an arms race with Star Wars that the Soviets had no ability to match inorder to end the nuclear mexican standoff.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you sleep Democrats for upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
Click to expand...




the reaganuts seem to have reading comprehension problems not understanding that it was gorbechevs reforms and the constant buildup of the arms race over the years that led to its collapse.that it would have happened then no matter who was president.They always ignore that Gorbechev when he was asked about that years later if reagan had a hand in it,he replied saying-are you serious?

the reaganuts are here just to troll message boards and waste your time.


Yeah, a lot of Americans haven't forgotten that Reagan destroyed the middle class and spent us into massive debt. 
amen to that,btw you mentioned Clinton,He accelerated what reagan got started with NAFTA shipping jobs over seas as well.
It was so much worse under that bastard Clinton with him accelerating the job losses that many ignorant sheople forget how bad it really was under reagan and blame it all on Clinton even though reagan is as much to blame for betraying the middle class as clinton is.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> What Regan is mostly acclaimed for is the exact opposite of what he really did.
> 
> He increased the mational debt, increased the annual deficits, increased the size of government, too.
> 
> Not exactly the fiscally conservative POTUS so many of todays younger idealistic cons imagine him as having been, eh?
> 
> Reagan was much like Obama in that respect...thgose that love him simple invent his history to suit their opwn goofy prejudices.
> 
> Some people think Obama is a liberal, and they're as wrong as those who think Reagan was a conservative.
> 
> They are/were both_ advocates of big government working for the wealthy internationalists._



stands up and gives standing ovation.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

antique4xpu said:


> ignoring the parts of history that you do not like is not very american
> 
> i suppose you ignore the conviction of oliver north as well
> 
> to pick and choose facts is  not very honest ....... but then you are connedservatives and unable to do differently
> 
> after-all , you made a promise to "rush" and "faux news"



I see you have noticed that as well in your short time here how they ignore the parts of the REAL reagan presidency that they dont like and just toot the horon of mouthpieces full of hot air like rush limbaugh and Faux news just like you said.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]You have to go back to JFK for a president the dems can boast about, especially now with BO in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History is going to be very kind to Obama.
> 
> History is already looking back on Clinton pretty well.
> 
> One only need to look at the last round of conventions.  The Bushes were nowhere to be seen at the RNC, but Clinton was the highlight of the night for the Democrats.
Click to expand...


History is basically a stepping back from the emotions that cloud our vision in the present to evaluate what took place at a time and place.  In the future, Barack Obama will be judged not by a fawning main stream media but by Presidential historians who will look at his accomplishments and his failures.  Unfortunately for this President...things like Benghazi...the IRS scandal...the first credit downgrade in our history...the worst recovery from a recession in modern history...the biggest increase to our national debt than all the other Presidents combined...the largest number of people on unemployment for the longest amount of time since the Great Depression...what will Obama hang his hat on when it comes to his "legacy"?

The reason that Clinton was such a rock star for the Democrats is that Barry has become such a disappointment.

The Bushes have stepped aside.  H.W. is elderly...W. has retired to his ranch in Texas and has made it a point not to interfere in national politics.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you sleep Democrats for upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> good lord your teachers really did program you well didnt they?
Click to expand...


Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992. 

You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.  

All the way up until 1991.  

Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.  

The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  We never saw it coming.


----------



## JoeB131

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you sleep Democrats for upset because we are the party of Lincoln freed the slaves the party Reagan free millions from communism and all they are the party of slavery And racial hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More lies loser?
Click to expand...


Double-Wide, no one cares about what you have to say... 

Get some psychotropic drugs, you need them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> good lord your teachers really did program you well didnt they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.
> 
> You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.
> 
> All the way up until 1991.
> 
> Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.
> 
> The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  *We never saw it coming*.
Click to expand...

..You mad it funny  We forced it via Ronald Reagan


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own&#8212;a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent events&#8212;Reagan&#8217;s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get &#8220;soft&#8221; officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of &#8220;moral disarmament&#8221; and Safire mocking Reagan&#8217;s rapport with Gorbachev: &#8220;He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev&#8217;s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.&#8221; It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...




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


Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> good lord your teachers really did program you well didnt they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.
> 
> You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.
> 
> All the way up until 1991.
> 
> Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.
> 
> The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  *We never saw it coming*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..You mad it funny  We forced it via Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


Yeah, East German border guards misread orders and all of a sudden tge rightwing who attacked Reagan as weak and a bumbling fool for having dealt civilly with Gorby....


...oh never mind. You people like the d Soviets you despised, reinvent history all the time.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...ervatives-revisonist-history-101-a-print.html


----------



## Dante

> 100 Media Moments that Changed America
> books.google.com/books?isbn...
> Jim Willis - 2010 - *History
> The fall of the wall may have seemed like an instantaneous event, but it was not ... 165 The actual breach of the Wall by Eastern Germans was allowed by border guards who had misread*...


 100 Media Moments that Changed America - Jim Willis - Google Books


----------



## Meathead

Dante, try some Preparation H. It's not exactly for your problem, but it's OTC and it can't hurt.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> good lord your teachers really did program you well didnt they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.
> 
> You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.
> 
> All the way up until 1991.
> 
> Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.
> 
> The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  *We never saw it coming*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..You mad it funny  We forced it via Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


No, dumbass.  All Reagan did was spend us into bankruptcy and destroy the middle class.  

The USSR Fell because 300 million Not Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do. 

It was no more caused by Reagan than the Fall of the British Empire. That happened when a bunch of Indians and Arabs and Africans all told the King to get Bent.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.
> 
> You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.
> 
> All the way up until 1991.
> 
> Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.
> 
> The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  *We never saw it coming*.
> 
> 
> 
> ..You mad it funny  We forced it via Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbass.  All Reagan did was spend us into bankruptcy and destroy the middle class.
> 
> The USSR Fell because 300 million Not Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do.
> 
> It was no more caused by Reagan than the Fall of the British Empire. That happened when a bunch of Indians and Arabs and Africans all told the King to get Bent.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive him. He's got it tough you see. He lives in a shit hole, can't keep a job and dates livestock.

<Joe, I can't keep apologizing for you all the time ffs!>


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..You mad it funny  We forced it via Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbass.  All Reagan did was spend us into bankruptcy and destroy the middle class.
> 
> The USSR Fell because 300 million Not Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do.
> 
> It was no more caused by Reagan than the Fall of the British Empire. That happened when a bunch of Indians and Arabs and Africans all told the King to get Bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll have to forgive him. He's got it tough you see. He lives in a shit hole, can't keep a job and dates livestock.
> 
> <Joe, I can't keep apologizing for you all the time ffs!>
Click to expand...


Guy, make sure you punch holes in the boxes when you send over those mail-order brides. 

The last batch we had quite the mess on our hands.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumbass.  All Reagan did was spend us into bankruptcy and destroy the middle class.
> 
> The USSR Fell because 300 million Not Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do.
> 
> It was no more caused by Reagan than the Fall of the British Empire. That happened when a bunch of Indians and Arabs and Africans all told the King to get Bent.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to forgive him. He's got it tough you see. He lives in a shit hole, can't keep a job and dates livestock.
> 
> <Joe, I can't keep apologizing for you all the time ffs!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, make sure you punch holes in the boxes when you send over those mail-order brides.
> 
> The last batch we had quite the mess on our hands.
Click to expand...

Well, if you order from gypsies what  do you expect? Christ, they're probably filthier than the livestock you commonly date.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to forgive him. He's got it tough you see. He lives in a shit hole, can't keep a job and dates livestock.
> 
> <Joe, I can't keep apologizing for you all the time ffs!>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, make sure you punch holes in the boxes when you send over those mail-order brides.
> 
> The last batch we had quite the mess on our hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you order from gypsies what  do you expect? Christ, they're probably filthier than the livestock you commonly date.
Click to expand...


Oh, you're going on about the Gypsies now... 

And black people... 

I'm waiting for you to comment on the Jews next.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, make sure you punch holes in the boxes when you send over those mail-order brides.
> 
> The last batch we had quite the mess on our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you order from gypsies what  do you expect? Christ, they're probably filthier than the livestock you commonly date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you're going on about the Gypsies now...
> 
> And black people...
> 
> I'm waiting for you to comment on the Jews next.
Click to expand...

No Joe, it's not about them. It's about you, your fondness of livestock and your racism against Czechs.


----------



## editec

Who can hate the Czechs?

Everybody loves the Czechs...they're like Europe's favorite victims.

Even Hitler planned on keeping them alive and we all know what a genocidal prick that guy was.


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.
> 
> You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.
> 
> All the way up until 1991.
> 
> Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.
> 
> The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  *We never saw it coming*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..You mad it funny  We forced it via Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, East German border guards misread orders and all of a sudden tge rightwing who attacked Reagan as weak and a bumbling fool for having dealt civilly with Gorby....
> 
> 
> ...oh never mind. You people like the d Soviets you despised, reinvent history all the time.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...ervatives-revisonist-history-101-a-print.html
Click to expand...

.


> 100 Media Moments that Changed America
> books.google.com/books?isbn...
> Jim Willis - 2010 - *History
> The fall of the wall may have seemed like an instantaneous event, but it was not ... 165 The actual breach of the Wall by Eastern Germans was allowed by border guards who had misread*...


 100 Media Moments that Changed America - Jim Willis - Google Books




----------

The failure of the wingnuts who worship at the altar of Reagan to addrress reality does justice to the true Reagan legacy: The Legacy of Duh!


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.
> 
> You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.
> 
> All the way up until 1991.
> 
> Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.
> 
> The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  *We never saw it coming*.
> 
> 
> 
> ..You mad it funny  We forced it via Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dumbass.  All Reagan did was spend us into bankruptcy and destroy the middle class.
> 
> The USSR Fell because 300 million Not Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do.
> 
> It was no more caused by Reagan than the Fall of the British Empire. That happened when a bunch of Indians and Arabs and Africans all told the King to get Bent.
Click to expand...


Get some help man...Really


----------



## antique4xpu

so let me understand this 

reagan invented sliced bread , the flush toilet , and he freed the slaves ........ got it


----------



## bendog

Well, he was only alive for the first two out of three, so I think we can assume he didn't free slaves.  (-:


----------



## bendog

Dante, I don't think Reagan became "more liberal" to the soviets at any pt, including when Gorbachav entered the stage.  Rather, I think your pts about Safire and Will ridiculing Reagan for going soft are just another incidence of Reagan being underestimated.  Reagan was lampooned as a man of few ideas, which was true; he was no Slick in being able to give a synopsis of how govt did something.  But, Reagan set out to win the Cold War.  They'd lose, we'd win.  Safire and Will were so used to political machievellian manuever, Reagan just initially went over their heads too.

I didn't vote for the man, because of his spending.  He had two central ideas:  the Soviets were evil and needed beating and the govt was too involved in deciding market winners.  I agreed with both, but thought his spending, and inclusion of the Relgious Right, inevitably doomed real reform on the latter idea.


----------



## Meathead

antique4xpu said:


> so let me understand this
> 
> reagan invented sliced bread , the flush toilet , and he freed the slaves ........ got it


No, those had already been done. Reagan helped bring down the USSR and free the Warsaw Pact states, brought about an ailing economy, marginalized left for a generation made Americans proud once again after the Johnson-Nixon-Carter catastrophes. Not fucking bad!


----------



## Dante

bendog said:


> Dante, I don't think Reagan became "more liberal" to the soviets at any pt, including when Gorbachav entered the stage.  Rather, I think your pts about Safire and Will ridiculing Reagan for going soft are just another incidence of Reagan being underestimated.  Reagan was lampooned as a man of few ideas, which was true; he was no Slick in being able to give a synopsis of how govt did something.  But, Reagan set out to win the Cold War.  They'd lose, we'd win.  Safire and Will were so used to political machievellian manuever, Reagan just initially went over their heads too.
> 
> I didn't vote for the man, because of his spending.  He had two central ideas:  the Soviets were evil and needed beating and the govt was too involved in deciding market winners.  I agreed with both, but thought his spending, and inclusion of the Relgious Right, inevitably doomed real reform on the latter idea.



You've bought into the Reagan Legacy myth, but it's underdstandable. It has been the current narrative for a few decades.

Reagan was like the psychic who makes so many predictions for so long a time one of them is bound to bear fruit.

Reagan was initially reactionary and tough with the Soviets and while that sped up the decay of the Soviet Empire, it neither initiated it or caused tbe fall of the Berlin Wall.

The Soviet system was resistent to change, but with the coming of the 20th century tgere were lots of sources at play that spelled trouble...internal as well as external.

The Berlin Wall?  It fell not because Gorby agreed to tear it down. It fell because of internal forces within East Germany and because of the liberal policies of Gorby and others...liberal policies made more viable by Reagan later softening his stance and policues toward the Eastern Bloc and particularily the Soviets

Like Obama, Reagan disappointed his most ardent and earliest supporters. With Obama, we have yet to see how his terms in office end and how his legacy gets 'invented'


----------



## Dante

Meathead said:


> antique4xpu said:
> 
> 
> 
> so let me understand this
> 
> reagan invented sliced bread , the flush toilet , and he freed the slaves ........ got it
> 
> 
> 
> No, those had already been done. Reagan helped bring down the USSR and free the Warsaw Pact states, brought about an ailing economy, marginalized left for a generation made Americans proud once again after the Johnson-Nixon-Carter catastrophes. Not fucking bad!
Click to expand...


Archie Bunker: "Meathead = dead from the neck up."  How very appropriate a scream name for you.


----------



## Camp

According to the Reagan fans and gorifiers, internal affairs in the USSR had absolutely nothing to do with the fall. People like Andrei Sakhorov, his wife Yelena Bonner  and Solzhenitsyn had no impact and were meaningless in the effort???


----------



## bendog

Dante said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dante, I don't think Reagan became "more liberal" to the soviets at any pt, including when Gorbachav entered the stage.  Rather, I think your pts about Safire and Will ridiculing Reagan for going soft are just another incidence of Reagan being underestimated.  Reagan was lampooned as a man of few ideas, which was true; he was no Slick in being able to give a synopsis of how govt did something.  But, Reagan set out to win the Cold War.  They'd lose, we'd win.  Safire and Will were so used to political machievellian manuever, Reagan just initially went over their heads too.
> 
> I didn't vote for the man, because of his spending.  He had two central ideas:  the Soviets were evil and needed beating and the govt was too involved in deciding market winners.  I agreed with both, but thought his spending, and inclusion of the Relgious Right, inevitably doomed real reform on the latter idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've bought into the Reagan Legacy myth, but it's underdstandable. It has been the current narrative for a few decades.
> 
> Reagan was like the psychic who makes so many predictions for so long a time one of them is bound to bear fruit.
> 
> Reagan was initially reactionary and tough with the Soviets and while that sped up the decay of the Soviet Empire, it neither initiated it or caused tbe fall of the Berlin Wall.
> 
> The Soviet system was resistent to change, but with the coming of the 20th century tgere were lots of sources at play that spelled trouble...internal as well as external.
> 
> The Berlin Wall?  It fell not because Gorby agreed to tear it down. It fell because of internal forces within East Germany and because of the liberal policies of Gorby and others...liberal policies made more viable by Reagan later softening his stance and policues toward the Eastern Bloc and particularily the Soviets
> 
> Like Obama, Reagan disappointed his most ardent and earliest supporters. With Obama, we have yet to see how his terms in office end and how his legacy gets 'invented'
Click to expand...


you misunderstood, I think, to read my post as saying Reagan won the Cold War.  That was his goal, and one that people like Will and Safire didn't grasp.  Reagan didn't want approachment or accord; he wanted it DEAD.  Nixon too found this overly simplistic.  As did the opponents of arms control.  My point is simply that Reagan, the simpleton, was vindicated by history.

I don't think Reagan foresaw the impact of the technical revolution, which was the real Soviet killer. 

The space program, govt sponsored research and defense all spurred the tech revolution ... but it was IBM, Apple and Msft, and private industry incorporating communication and tech applications.  Unlike the TPM, Reagan had no issue with govt involment in supporting markets.

The central planning of the Soviet economy wasn't amenable to managing markets like that.  It did well with building hydroelectric power ... and not so well with nuclear plants ... but they actually had higher gnp increases late in the industrial revolution.  "Liberal" economists in the 60s and 70s predicted the soviets' market theory inevitably doomed them, and coincidentally that was my education.  Reagan either never bought that or he simply didn't care.  He was going to build a conventional force to meet them, and outspend them on nuclear offense/defense.

But, I do think Reagan has to get some credit for buying into neoliberalism, Thatcherism, and the Kemp Roth tax cuts.  The problem for me was simply that he didn't PAY FOR THE TAX CUTS.  In short, he failed his own vision to make govt smaller.  That' s his central ideological inconsistency:  his small govt belief inherently conflicted with miltary confrontion with the Godless Bolsheviks.


----------



## Friends

Ronald Reagan is estimated to have had an IQ of 105.

List of Famous IQ's Page II of IV - IQ of Famous People

He was like someone who does not know how to play poker, but who is dealt several winning hands. 

Reagan was a group phenomenon. His advisers ran the country. Reagan was an appealing front man who needed to be told what to say and where to put his feet. According to David Stockman, Edwin Meese was "the acting president."

During the Republican National Convention of 1964 Ronald Reagan gave a speech that was empty of insight, but full of the cliches reactionaries like to hear. Meese decided that Reagan had the charisma to lead the cause of Republican reaction after Barry Goldwater suffered a well deserved public flogging in the presidential election of 1964. 

The first winning hand dealt to Reagan was the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. That was harmless, but irritating to voters who did not sympathize with students who were getting a low tuition education at one of the finest universities in the world, and who did not like how it was run. 

Another winning hand was the Watts Riot of 1965, and worse black ghetto riots in 1966. 

Jimmy Carter was not responsible for the Iranian Revolution, and the gasoline lines and inflation it lead to, but he was blamed.

Obama's approval rating has often been higher than Reagan's after they had been in office an equal number of months, but Reagan did carry forty nine out of fifty states in 1984. That stays in the mind, and contributes to the Reagan myth.

During the election of 1980 most reactionary voters remembered the disappointment of the election of 1964. They had hoped that Goldwater as president would repeal the reforms of the New Deal. Instead Lyndon Johnson won 61 percent of the vote. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. The country began to move in exactly the opposite distance the reactionaries wanted. When a mass movement arose in opposition to Johnson it was to the left of Johnson.

After the election of 1964 reactionaries thought the United States, or at least their vision of the United States, was doomed. When Reagan won in 1980 with essentially the same program that Barry Goldwater promoted in 1964, reactionaries thought history had ended happily ever after.


----------



## Friends

bendog said:


> I do think Reagan has to get some credit for buying into neoliberalism, Thatcherism, and the Kemp Roth tax cuts.  The problem for me was simply that he didn't PAY FOR THE TAX CUTS.  In short, he failed his own vision to make govt smaller.  That' s his central ideological inconsistency:  his small govt belief inherently conflicted with miltary confrontion with the Godless Bolsheviks.


 
When Ronald Reagan ran in 1980 he said he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983, by cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse." He never said anything about cutting popular domestic spending programs. Most whites thought that all he needed to do was to tell "the welfare queen of Chicago,"  and "strapping young bucks buying t bone steak with food stamps," to get jobs.

The enduring legacy of Ronald Reagan was to convince most Republican voters that they can have the government they want without paying for it. His economic policies, and GOP policies since him, have been essentially fraudulent.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Libs, you lost your media monopoly, you look like idiots trying to rewrite the Reagan years


----------



## bendog

Estimated IQ's.  If I needed any "validation" to the thesis that Reagan was consistently underestimated that's it.  LOL.  And, there's a flip side.  The underemployed, white, former union voters in Ohio and Penn, who Obama referred to as clinging to bibles and guns, didn't buy Mitt and the Teaparty even a little.

The current gop view is 'we can't trust voters cause once they get 'free' healtcare, they'll be like blacks on crack, and unable to govern themselves.'   Reagan didn't have a lot of points of ideology, and they conflicted, but he trusted voters would act in not just their own short term interests, but that they were able to grasp a theory of govt that their leaders had not bought into.  Yes, he ushered in structural deficits, but since 1980 every potus except Bushii has been on the neoliberal train.


----------



## Friends

CrusaderFrank said:


> Libs, you lost your media monopoly, you look like idiots trying to rewrite the Reagan years



During Jimmy Carter's presidency an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs per year. 

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ 

The highest unemployment rate under Carter was 7.8 percent. The highest under Reagan was 10.8 percent. 

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt 

Jimmy Carter paid down the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. Reagan  nearly tripled it.

File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Debt Graph by President

The ugly, sordid reality of the Reagan years is obvious to everyone but an ideological fool.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

First your chart is LOL for not showing the Obama spending hockey stick

Second what's your point anyway


----------



## Friends

CrusaderFrank said:


> First your chart is LOL for not showing the Obama spending hockey stick
> 
> Second what's your point anyway


 
If you did not understand my point the first time, there is no reason for me to repeat it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Friends said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> First your chart is LOL for not showing the Obama spending hockey stick
> 
> Second what's your point anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you did not understand my point the first time, there is no reason for me to repeat it.
Click to expand...


Yeah its beyond me. Use small words like: debt is bad, deficits are bad

OK?


----------



## Dante

bendog said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dante, I don't think Reagan became "more liberal" to the soviets at any pt, including when Gorbachav entered the stage.  Rather, I think your pts about Safire and Will ridiculing Reagan for going soft are just another incidence of Reagan being underestimated.  Reagan was lampooned as a man of few ideas, which was true; he was no Slick in being able to give a synopsis of how govt did something.  But, Reagan set out to win the Cold War.  They'd lose, we'd win.  Safire and Will were so used to political machievellian manuever, Reagan just initially went over their heads too.
> 
> I didn't vote for the man, because of his spending.  He had two central ideas:  the Soviets were evil and needed beating and the govt was too involved in deciding market winners.  I agreed with both, but thought his spending, and inclusion of the Relgious Right, inevitably doomed real reform on the latter idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've bought into the Reagan Legacy myth, but it's underdstandable. It has been the current narrative for a few decades.
> 
> Reagan was like the psychic who makes so many predictions for so long a time one of them is bound to bear fruit.
> 
> Reagan was initially reactionary and tough with the Soviets and while that sped up the decay of the Soviet Empire, it neither initiated it or caused tbe fall of the Berlin Wall.
> 
> The Soviet system was resistent to change, but with the coming of the 20th century tgere were lots of sources at play that spelled trouble...internal as well as external.
> 
> The Berlin Wall?  It fell not because Gorby agreed to tear it down. It fell because of internal forces within East Germany and because of the liberal policies of Gorby and others...liberal policies made more viable by Reagan later softening his stance and policues toward the Eastern Bloc and particularily the Soviets
> 
> Like Obama, Reagan disappointed his most ardent and earliest supporters. With Obama, we have yet to see how his terms in office end and how his legacy gets 'invented'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you misunderstood, I think, to read my post as saying Reagan won the Cold War.  That was his goal, and one that people like Will and Safire didn't grasp.  Reagan didn't want approachment or accord; he wanted it DEAD.  Nixon too found this overly simplistic.  As did the opponents of arms control.  My point is simply that Reagan, the simpleton, was vindicated by history.
> 
> I don't think Reagan foresaw the impact of the technical revolution, which was the real Soviet killer.
> 
> The space program, govt sponsored research and defense all spurred the tech revolution ... but it was IBM, Apple and Msft, and private industry incorporating communication and tech applications.  Unlike the TPM, Reagan had no issue with govt involment in supporting markets.
> 
> The central planning of the Soviet economy wasn't amenable to managing markets like that.  It did well with building hydroelectric power ... and not so well with nuclear plants ... but they actually had higher gnp increases late in the industrial revolution.  "Liberal" economists in the 60s and 70s predicted the soviets' market theory inevitably doomed them, and coincidentally that was my education.  Reagan either never bought that or he simply didn't care.  He was going to build a conventional force to meet them, and outspend them on nuclear offense/defense.
> 
> But, I do think Reagan has to get some credit for buying into neoliberalism, Thatcherism, and the Kemp Roth tax cuts.  The problem for me was simply that he didn't PAY FOR THE TAX CUTS.  In short, he failed his own vision to make govt smaller.  That' s his central ideological inconsistency:  his small govt belief inherently conflicted with miltary confrontion with the Godless Bolsheviks.
Click to expand...


Every American President wanted the Soviet system dead. The battles were all about how to bring that about.

Reagan had a tough line approach and it hardened the internal forces in the Soviet Union that favored an approach that could have had them look like China pre-Nixon and North Korea today. - isolated, paranoid and dangerously militaristic. 

Only when Reagan softened his stance did events allow Gorby and other forces to guide a failing Empire forward.

Your comnents are as simplistic as the Reagan Legacy Project would have it dictated and as simplistic ss the man himself. At one point Reagan was underrated, now people lije you grossly overrate the man's contributions.

In the end, when all alive during the 1980s pass on, a new look will judge Reagan without the stench of a needed myth


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly he left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party. Just look at the venom they spew when talking about their conquerer. They never say anything good about the defeat the USSR, how could they? Reagan crushed their hometeam


----------



## Dante

Poor Frank...


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly he left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party. Just look at the venom they spew when talking about their conquerer. They never say anything good about the defeat the USSR, how could they? Reagan crushed their hometeam



Wow... and they are doing a great job, aren't they?  

So Reagan destroyed the middle class and all those guys who used to vote Republican now vote Democratic!  

Awesome.  Good job.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly he left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party. Just look at the venom they spew when talking about their conquerer. They never say anything good about the defeat the USSR, how could they? Reagan crushed their hometeam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... and they are doing a great job, aren't they?
> 
> So Reagan destroyed the middle class and all those guys who used to vote Republican now vote Democratic!
> 
> Awesome.  Good job.
Click to expand...


Joey were you a Reagan voter


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly he left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party. Just look at the venom they spew when talking about their conquerer. They never say anything good about the defeat the USSR, how could they? Reagan crushed their hometeam



You are lost when intellectuals discuss Reagan Frank. Your talking points just seem frivolous and trivial.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dante said:


> Poor Frank...



I see you decided to come back to your thread and take crusader retard and the other Reaganuts back to school again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly he left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party. Just look at the venom they spew when talking about their conquerer. They never say anything good about the defeat the USSR, how could they? Reagan crushed their hometeam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are lost when intellectuals discuss Reagan Frank. Your talking points just seem frivolous and trivial.
Click to expand...


Yeah I'm a huge fan of the liberal intellectuals who post here, it's downright educational


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Frank...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you decided to come back to your thread and take crusader retard and the other Reaganuts back to school again.
Click to expand...


Hey where'd the USSR go? It was there at the start of the Reagan presidency but they parked it out back and when we woke up this morning ( in America) -- it was gone!


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly he left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party. Just look at the venom they spew when talking about their conquerer. They never say anything good about the defeat the USSR, how could they? Reagan crushed their hometeam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... and they are doing a great job, aren't they?
> 
> So Reagan destroyed the middle class and all those guys who used to vote Republican now vote Democratic!
> 
> Awesome.  Good job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joey were you a Reagan voter
Click to expand...


Yup. voted for him twice.  And frankly, at the time, it was a good call.  At that time, I was either in College under a miltiary scholarship OR in the active duty military, so frankly, Reagan was good for what I was trying to do at the time.  

But here's the thing.  It's laughable to claim Reagan's policies brought down the USSR, which collapsed under its own weight.  The government types missed it, but a lot of people familiar with Russian studies saw it coming.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so soundly he left them no choice but to complete their takeover of the Democrat Party. Just look at the venom they spew when talking about their conquerer. They never say anything good about the defeat the USSR, how could they? Reagan crushed their hometeam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are lost when intellectuals discuss Reagan Frank. Your talking points just seem frivolous and trivial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I'm a huge fan of the liberal intellectuals who post here, it's downright educational
Click to expand...


Everything doesn't have to be slanted or spun into liberal or conservative. Scholarly people and intellectuals are actually able to consume data in an objective fashion with the end goal being a truthful and accurate conclusion. They do it because they want to be honest with themselves and are not interested in ignoring facts and data or adding unfounded speculation to fit a predetermined mold or "belief". When they put their conclusions into words it is easy to decipher their opinions from the facts they present and the reader or listener is free to deviate in a direction, challange or analysis of fact of their own.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

REAGAN DENOUNCES IDEOLOGY OF SOVIET AS 'FOCUS OF EVIL' - NYTimes.com

"ORLANDO, Fla., March 8&#8212; President Reagan, denouncing Soviet Communism as ''the focus of evil in the modern world,'' today warned Protestant church leaders not to treat the arms race ''as a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil.''

Groundbreaking. Breathtaking in audacity


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... and they are doing a great job, aren't they?
> 
> So Reagan destroyed the middle class and all those guys who used to vote Republican now vote Democratic!
> 
> Awesome.  Good job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joey were you a Reagan voter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. voted for him twice.  And frankly, at the time, it was a good call.  At that time, I was either in College under a miltiary scholarship OR in the active duty military, so frankly, Reagan was good for what I was trying to do at the time.
> 
> But here's the thing.  It's laughable to claim Reagan's policies brought down the USSR, which collapsed under its own weight.  The government types missed it, but a lot of people familiar with Russian studies saw it coming.
Click to expand...


Yeah, not even the CIA saw it coming.  

List of all the other US Presidents and political leaders besides Reagan who called the USSR an "Evil Empire":

End of List


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PrometheusBound said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> USSR
> USSR
> USSR
> USSR
> USSR
> Reagan
> No more USSR
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Putin is no different from any other Communist Russian aggressive dictator.  Russia had 20 years of capitalist democracy and it was a complete failure, just as have the last 30 years of American capitalist democracy.
Click to expand...


Complete failure? Do you know anyone from the USSR?


----------



## Camp

Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.



Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot


----------



## Jroc

bendog said:


> * Reagan was lampooned as a man of few ideas, which was true*; .







> From 1975 to 1979, Ronald Reagan wrote more than 600 radio addresses in his own hand, planning every plank in what would become his presidential platform. Herewith, a sampling of classic Reagan, compiled by Hoover fellows Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson, and Martin Anderson.



http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6861


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.



Proving that they were indeed Evil and needed to be defeated


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [quot
> 
> Yeah, not even the CIA saw it coming.
> 
> List of all the other US Presidents and political leaders besides Reagan who called the USSR an "Evil Empire":
> 
> End of List



The USSR did not fall because Reagan confused it with _Star Wars_.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that they were indeed Evil and needed to be defeated
Click to expand...


Or that they made a mistake. 

Just like the Crew of _USS Vincennes _made a mistake when it shot down an Iranian Airliner full of pilgrams visiting Mecca.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot
Click to expand...


Well, no, it was the fault of the Korean pilots who flew into Soviet Airspace.  And that wasn't the first time that happened.  Another Korean Airliner was shot down in 1978 when it flew into Russian airspace.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quot
> 
> Yeah, not even the CIA saw it coming.
> 
> List of all the other US Presidents and political leaders besides Reagan who called the USSR an "Evil Empire":
> 
> End of List
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR did not fall because Reagan confused it with _Star Wars_.
Click to expand...


You mean the successfully tested antimissile defense system? That's another thing Progressives got wrong


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that they were indeed Evil and needed to be defeated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that they made a mistake.
> 
> Just like the Crew of _USS Vincennes _made a mistake when it shot down an Iranian Airliner full of pilgrams visiting Mecca.
Click to expand...


The old USSR wasn't evil? You leftist stooges really believe that?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quot
> 
> Yeah, not even the CIA saw it coming.
> 
> List of all the other US Presidents and political leaders besides Reagan who called the USSR an "Evil Empire":
> 
> End of List
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR did not fall because Reagan confused it with _Star Wars_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the successfully tested antimissile defense system? That's another thing Progressives got wrong
Click to expand...


Anti-missile defense systems didn't work then, and they don't work now.  

Big secret of the Gulf War.  Most of the time, the Patriot Missiles missed even SCUDs, which were 1950's technology.


----------



## NoNukes

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that they were indeed Evil and needed to be defeated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that they made a mistake.
> 
> Just like the Crew of _USS Vincennes _made a mistake when it shot down an Iranian Airliner full of pilgrams visiting Mecca.
Click to expand...


I know the man who was the Captain of the Vincennes. This summer, while he was visiting, he told us the story. He discovered later that it was not a mistake, and the airliner carried 3 or 4 people on America's 'hit list'. It was decided that the death of the innocent people on board was worth getting the targets on the 'hit list'. There was equipment on board that distinguished military from commercial aircraft. This equipment went down, but they were told to continue with there mission, and the equipment would be straightened out in a few days. They 'accidentally' shot down the airliner. Later on, he discovered the truth.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that they were indeed Evil and needed to be defeated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that they made a mistake.
> 
> Just like the Crew of _USS Vincennes _made a mistake when it shot down an Iranian Airliner full of pilgrams visiting Mecca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The old USSR wasn't evil? You leftist stooges really believe that?
Click to expand...


No more than anyone else.   We genocided the Native Americans and had 400 years of racial discrimination/slavery.   

But you stated shooting down an airliner by mistake "proves" they were evil.  

Then so were we when we shot down that Iranian Airliner.


----------



## JoeB131

NoNukes said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that they were indeed Evil and needed to be defeated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that they made a mistake.
> 
> Just like the Crew of _USS Vincennes _made a mistake when it shot down an Iranian Airliner full of pilgrams visiting Mecca.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the man who was the Captain of the Vincennes. This summer, while he was visiting, he told us the story. He discovered later that it was not a mistake, and the airliner carried 3 or 4 people on America's 'hit list'. It was decided that the death of the innocent people on board was worth getting the targets on the 'hit list'. There was equipment on board that distinguished military from commercial aircraft. This equipment went down, but they were told to continue with there mission, and the equipment would be straightened out in a few days. They 'accidentally' shot down the airliner. Later on, he discovered the truth.
Click to expand...


I think that's kind of a stretch.   

The tapes of the action show that the crew really thought they were shooting at an Iranian F-14.


----------



## NoNukes

JoeB131 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that they made a mistake.
> 
> Just like the Crew of _USS Vincennes _made a mistake when it shot down an Iranian Airliner full of pilgrams visiting Mecca.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the man who was the Captain of the Vincennes. This summer, while he was visiting, he told us the story. He discovered later that it was not a mistake, and the airliner carried 3 or 4 people on America's 'hit list'. It was decided that the death of the innocent people on board was worth getting the targets on the 'hit list'. There was equipment on board that distinguished military from commercial aircraft. This equipment went down, but they were told to continue with there mission, and the equipment would be straightened out in a few days. They 'accidentally' shot down the airliner. Later on, he discovered the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that's kind of a stretch.
> 
> The tapes of the action show that the crew really thought they were shooting at an Iranian F-14.
Click to expand...


According to him, it happened because of equipment failure, and they thought that they were doing the right thing. He discovered the truth later. this guy is one of those rare people who cannot tell a lie, so I do notknow why he would have told this story if he had not discovered the truth.


----------



## Camp

Jroc said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot
Click to expand...


Who said it was Reagans fault? Did I say it was Reagans fault? No, you said it. Thats because you are the real idiot. I'll bet you don't even know that speech or what it meant at the time it was made. It was Reagans protrayal of a tough guy. Remember, he was not a great actor, he was a class B actor. He was scolding the USSR. He mocked them and demeaned them. The enemies of the USA knew it was an act and Reagan was full of crap. The terrorist attacts began a month later with the bombing of the Beirut Embassy bombing. The communist decided to give full support to communist revolution in Central America which would make Reagan the ruler of an evil empire with Iran/Contra and his support of an illegal war. The Evil Empire speech was a bluff and none of our enemys fell for the bluff. The shoot down of KAL 007 showed the lack of fear or concern about the tough talking actor President.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was Reagans fault? Did I say it was Reagans fault? No, you said it. Thats because you are the real idiot. I'll bet you don't even know that speech or what it meant at the time it was made. It was Reagans protrayal of a tough guy. Remember, he was not a great actor, he was a class B actor. He was scolding the USSR. He mocked them and demeaned them. The enemies of the USA knew it was an act and Reagan was full of crap. The terrorist attacts began a month later with the bombing of the Beirut Embassy bombing. The communist decided to give full support to communist revolution in Central America which would make Reagan the ruler of an evil empire with Iran/Contra and his support of an illegal war. The Evil Empire speech was a bluff and none of our enemys fell for the bluff. The shoot down of KAL 007 showed the lack of fear or concern about the tough talking actor President.
Click to expand...

It gives me pause to think that some so inept at history and economics feel compelled to comment on things they know so little about. Minimalist arguments, as the above, are fodder for and from  the minds of analytic midgets.

I understand the internet provides a forum where the only requirements are a computer, a connection and the ability to put words together to form sentences. Yet you would think anyone with an iota of self respect would care about the integrity of what they write.

In the end, it is a forum open to anyone with fairly simple requirements given basic universal education and the availability of technology, but still...(pause)


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was Reagans fault? Did I say it was Reagans fault? No, you said it. Thats because you are the real idiot. I'll bet you don't even know that speech or what it meant at the time it was made. It was Reagans protrayal of a tough guy. Remember, he was not a great actor, he was a class B actor. He was scolding the USSR. He mocked them and demeaned them. The enemies of the USA knew it was an act and Reagan was full of crap. The terrorist attacts began a month later with the bombing of the Beirut Embassy bombing. The communist decided to give full support to communist revolution in Central America which would make Reagan the ruler of an evil empire with Iran/Contra and his support of an illegal war. The Evil Empire speech was a bluff and none of our enemys fell for the bluff. The shoot down of KAL 007 showed the lack of fear or concern about the tough talking actor President.
Click to expand...


Deploying Pershing II and Minuteman missiles in Europe was no bluff. 

Building a military capable of wrecking Soviet Third Shock Army push through Fulda Gap was no bluff. 

Building a space based antimissile defense system was no bluff

Your "facts" just ain't so


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it was Reagans fault? Did I say it was Reagans fault? No, you said it. Thats because you are the real idiot. I'll bet you don't even know that speech or what it meant at the time it was made. It was Reagans protrayal of a tough guy. Remember, he was not a great actor, he was a class B actor. He was scolding the USSR. He mocked them and demeaned them. The enemies of the USA knew it was an act and Reagan was full of crap. The terrorist attacts began a month later with the bombing of the Beirut Embassy bombing. The communist decided to give full support to communist revolution in Central America which would make Reagan the ruler of an evil empire with Iran/Contra and his support of an illegal war. The Evil Empire speech was a bluff and none of our enemys fell for the bluff. The shoot down of KAL 007 showed the lack of fear or concern about the tough talking actor President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It gives me pause to think that some so inept at history and economics feel compelled to comment on things they know so little about. Minimalist arguments, as the above, are fodder for and from  the minds of analytic midgets.
> 
> I understand the internet provides a forum where the only requirements are a computer, a connection and the ability to put words together to form sentences. Yet you would think anyone with an iota of self respect would care about the integrity of what they write.
> 
> In the end, it is a forum open to anyone with fairly simple requirements given basic universal education and the availability of technology, but still...(pause)
Click to expand...


Lot of effort put into an attempt at an insult. BTW, I haven't made any comments about economics. The history I speak of comes from personal experiance. I remember the Reagan era. It was an era of death and destruction that people like you like to ignore. The death and destruction was kept in the shadows and excuses were made over and over, but the death and destruction was there. People like me have an obligation to remind and inform others so that the revisionist like yourself don't get away with attempts to cover-up the truth.


----------



## editec

Why DO today's  conservatives love Reagan?

Clearly it is because they don't know much about his policies_ in fact._

The man was a STATIST without doubt.

Still the people3 who claim to hate statists love Reagan.

_Ignorance is bliss, _I suppose


----------



## thanatos144

editec said:


> Why DO today's  conservatives love Reagan?
> 
> Clearly it is because they don't know much about his policies_ in fact._
> 
> The man was a STATIST without doubt.
> 
> Still the people3 who claim to hate statists love Reagan.
> 
> _Ignorance is bliss, _I suppose



The showing his ignorance  about Reagan and his policies is you

Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DO today's  conservatives love Reagan?
> 
> Clearly it is because they don't know much about his policies_ in fact._
> 
> The man was a STATIST without doubt.
> 
> Still the people3 who claim to hate statists love Reagan.
> 
> _Ignorance is bliss, _I suppose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The showing his ignorance  about Reagan and his policies is you
> 
> Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...


Reagan was evil. He was a hypocrite. He bargained with terrorist which strenthened them. He took the funds from the terrorist and financed an illiegal war. Illegal because congress had forbidden it. He financed death squads and gangs of thugs. He turned all of Central America into a war zone. He allowed an open season on Americans. Planes were hijacked, Americans were picked out, killed and thrown onto the tarmac. Embassys were bombed, military personel were kidnapped, tortured and murdered. Fuck his pretty speechs. What I just listed is reality.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why DO today's  conservatives love Reagan?
> 
> Clearly it is because they don't know much about his policies_ in fact._
> 
> The man was a STATIST without doubt.
> 
> Still the people3 who claim to hate statists love Reagan.
> 
> _Ignorance is bliss, _I suppose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The showing his ignorance  about Reagan and his policies is you
> 
> Sent from my LG-MS770 using Tapatalk 4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan was evil. He was a hypocrite. He bargained with terrorist which strenthened them. He took the funds from the terrorist and financed an illiegal war. Illegal because congress had forbidden it. He financed death squads and gangs of thugs. He turned all of Central America into a war zone. He allowed an open season on Americans. Planes were hijacked, Americans were picked out, killed and thrown onto the tarmac. Embassys were bombed, military personel were kidnapped, tortured and murdered. Fuck his pretty speechs. What I just listed is reality.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.



Oh yea,thats right,I forgot all about that one.

Like you said,the shooting down of that airliner by the soviets proved that there was no lack of fear from them towards  the grade B actor.


No more than anyone else. We genocided the Native Americans and had 400 years of racial discrimination/slavery. 

But you stated shooting down an airliner by mistake "proves" they were evil. 

Then so were we when we shot down that Iranian Airliner. 
__________________
excellent point.

Our corrupt school system never talks about the atrocities the white man here in america commited against humankind.sure they'll mention slavery but they leave out the brutal atrocities they committed for 400 years that rival Stalins.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR, which was very much alive when he left, and the fall of which caught the Intelligence Communities completely by surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> good lord your teachers really did program you well didnt they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Armed forces from 1981 to 1992.
> 
> You know what the DIA did every year for us.  They published this big fun book about the USSR entitled "Opposing Forces" that detailed all sorts of kewl info about Russian divisons and military strength and glossy picutres of their tanks, ships and planes (even the Buran Space Shuttle that never made it into space).   And they published a new version of this book every year.
> 
> All the way up until 1991.
> 
> Three years after Reagan left office and was enjoying his Alzheimers.  Even as they were chipping away at the Berlin Wall.  The USSR was still the big threat.  Until it wasn't.
> 
> The point being, the Fall of the Soviet Empire had nothing to do with a senile old actor, and caught us completely by surprise.  We never saw it coming.
Click to expand...


amen to that,great job of taking him to school.stands up and gives standing ovation.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yea,thats right,I forgot all about that one.
> 
> Like you said,the shooting down of that airliner by the soviets proved that there was no lack of fear from them towards  the grade B actor.
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. We genocided the Native Americans and had 400 years of racial discrimination/slavery.
> 
> But you stated shooting down an airliner by mistake "proves" they were evil.
> 
> Then so were we when we shot down that Iranian Airliner.
> __________________
> excellent point.
> 
> Our corrupt school system never talks about the atrocities the white man here in america commited against humankind.sure they'll mention slavery but they leave out the brutal atrocities they committed for 400 years that rival Stalins.
Click to expand...


Every empire is evil by definition. It is rare that the leader of an empire is not evil or at least does't allow evil to exist to maintain the empire.


----------



## bendog

Dante said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've bought into the Reagan Legacy myth, but it's underdstandable. It has been the current narrative for a few decades.
> 
> Reagan was like the psychic who makes so many predictions for so long a time one of them is bound to bear fruit.
> 
> Reagan was initially reactionary and tough with the Soviets and while that sped up the decay of the Soviet Empire, it neither initiated it or caused tbe fall of the Berlin Wall.
> 
> The Soviet system was resistent to change, but with the coming of the 20th century tgere were lots of sources at play that spelled trouble...internal as well as external.
> 
> The Berlin Wall?  It fell not because Gorby agreed to tear it down. It fell because of internal forces within East Germany and because of the liberal policies of Gorby and others...liberal policies made more viable by Reagan later softening his stance and policues toward the Eastern Bloc and particularily the Soviets
> 
> Like Obama, Reagan disappointed his most ardent and earliest supporters. With Obama, we have yet to see how his terms in office end and how his legacy gets 'invented'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you misunderstood, I think, to read my post as saying Reagan won the Cold War.  That was his goal, and one that people like Will and Safire didn't grasp.  Reagan didn't want approachment or accord; he wanted it DEAD.  Nixon too found this overly simplistic.  As did the opponents of arms control.  My point is simply that Reagan, the simpleton, was vindicated by history.
> 
> I don't think Reagan foresaw the impact of the technical revolution, which was the real Soviet killer.
> 
> The space program, govt sponsored research and defense all spurred the tech revolution ... but it was IBM, Apple and Msft, and private industry incorporating communication and tech applications.  Unlike the TPM, Reagan had no issue with govt involment in supporting markets.
> 
> The central planning of the Soviet economy wasn't amenable to managing markets like that.  It did well with building hydroelectric power ... and not so well with nuclear plants ... but they actually had higher gnp increases late in the industrial revolution.  "Liberal" economists in the 60s and 70s predicted the soviets' market theory inevitably doomed them, and coincidentally that was my education.  Reagan either never bought that or he simply didn't care.  He was going to build a conventional force to meet them, and outspend them on nuclear offense/defense.
> 
> But, I do think Reagan has to get some credit for buying into neoliberalism, Thatcherism, and the Kemp Roth tax cuts.  The problem for me was simply that he didn't PAY FOR THE TAX CUTS.  In short, he failed his own vision to make govt smaller.  That' s his central ideological inconsistency:  his small govt belief inherently conflicted with miltary confrontion with the Godless Bolsheviks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every American President wanted the Soviet system dead. The battles were all about how to bring that about.
> 
> Reagan had a tough line approach and it hardened the internal forces in the Soviet Union that favored an approach that could have had them look like China pre-Nixon and North Korea today. - isolated, paranoid and dangerously militaristic.
> 
> Only when Reagan softened his stance did events allow Gorby and other forces to guide a failing Empire forward.
> 
> Your comnents are as simplistic as the Reagan Legacy Project would have it dictated and as simplistic ss the man himself. At one point Reagan was underrated, now people lije you grossly overrate the man's contributions.
> 
> In the end, when all alive during the 1980s pass on, a new look will judge Reagan without the stench of a needed myth
Click to expand...


And you are hardly the arbitrar of truth or impartiality.  Personally, my view of reagan is something I haven't posted because I try to avoid posters like you projecting your views onto my posts.

Reagan's greatness is largely personality.  But, then up until 1940, so was FDRs  You are correct that history will judge decades on, but you project your own prejudices to think I have judged Reagan's legacy.

His achievments were largely on the policies of others.  And that's not a diss.  Luck is something that happens.  He was elected as an unlikely result of Nixon and Ford falling to Carter, a decent man and policy wonk.  Reagan's personality of optimism and cheer was a contrast.  The soviets were doomed.  The information revolution was a done deal.  Reagan adopted neoliberalism more or less inherently as it shared commonality with the GE education, but then again, the Chinese didn't get on board while communism was working for them.  In short, it wasn't much of a choice.

And as to his intelligence ... having few thoughts is not the same as stupid.


----------



## bendog

Camp said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yea,thats right,I forgot all about that one.
> 
> Like you said,the shooting down of that airliner by the soviets proved that there was no lack of fear from them towards  the grade B actor.
> 
> 
> No more than anyone else. We genocided the Native Americans and had 400 years of racial discrimination/slavery.
> 
> But you stated shooting down an airliner by mistake "proves" they were evil.
> 
> Then so were we when we shot down that Iranian Airliner.
> __________________
> excellent point.
> 
> Our corrupt school system never talks about the atrocities the white man here in america commited against humankind.sure they'll mention slavery but they leave out the brutal atrocities they committed for 400 years that rival Stalins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every empire is evil by definition. It is rare that the leader of an empire is not evil or at least does't allow evil to exist to maintain the empire.
Click to expand...


Aside, Reagan was criticized for not doing more about the SK airliner and he responed more or less by saying "what do you wnat me to do, declare war?"  LOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Here is the REAL Reaganomics that the Reaganut worshipers worship saying he created 20 million jobs,blah blah blah blah exposed for the lies they are.The reaganuts of course wont watch this video so before they go and say Rachel Maddows has no credibility,problem is,its not JUST Rachel Madows saying it.

This video exposes and proves what i was saying earlier that actual sources from back then in the 80's exposed the myth of reagan.

As you'll see in thei video,actual mainstream newscasts from back then like MSNBC and The washington post as well prove that reagan betrayed the middle class.that his trickle down economics only enriched the top 1% and betrayed everyone else.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjlvRoPvWI4]Rachel Maddow GOP tax bonus for rich ignores failure of Reaganomics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## antique4xpu

i seem to remember when reagan shot down a civilian airliner full of iranian passengers 

america finally  paid millions to the victims families , but never apologized 

i wonder why iran is so suspicious of us


----------



## Toro

Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time.  He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.


----------



## Oldstyle

That's because Reagan actually had some experience.  We elected someone who was a noob...because he gave wonderful speeches reading from a teleprompter...someone who's whole adult life has been given things like Nobel Peace Prizes simply for showing up and now doesn't have a *clue* how to deal with complex political problems.

I get the sense that Barry spends most of his time sitting across the desk from people wondering how dare they disagree with him because he's Barack Obama...the first black President of the Harvard Law Review!  Let's be honest here...that's what got him his six figure book deal right out of law school (Gee, wonder why it took so long for him to pay off his student loans?)...got him his teaching position at the University of Chicago...and his job at the prestigious Chicago law firm...his Illinois State Senator's gig...his US Senator's gig...and the nomination as President.  We've got a "leader" who's never REALLY accomplished anything in his entire adult life, running our country at a time of crisis and we're shocked that it's not going well.  It can't be Barry's fault though...he's a freakin' genius!  Just ask him.  He doesn't quite *get* economics of course...and can't be bothered to do the hard work of building political consensus.  He's never had to do hard work before...why should he now?  He's the first black President of the Harvard Law Review!!!  There are OTHER people to do hard work...he's just there to give a speech every now and then and look good.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time.  He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.



Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!


----------



## Jroc

Camp said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Six months after the much touted Reagan "Evil Empire" speech, the USSR shot down a commercial airliner that had left Anchorage, Alaska and was flying to S. Korea. All aboard KAL 007 perished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah it was Reagan's fault..Shut up you idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it was Reagans fault? Did I say it was Reagans fault? No, you said it. Thats because you are the real idiot. I'll bet you don't even know that speech or what it meant at the time it was made. It was Reagans protrayal of a tough guy. Remember, he was not a great actor, he was a class B actor. He was scolding the USSR. He mocked them and demeaned them. The enemies of the USA knew it was an act and Reagan was full of crap. The terrorist attacts began a month later with the bombing of the Beirut Embassy bombing. The communist decided to give full support to communist revolution in Central America which would make Reagan the ruler of an evil empire with Iran/Contra and his support of an illegal war. The Evil Empire speech was a bluff and none of our enemys fell for the bluff. The shoot down of KAL 007 showed the lack of fear or concern about the tough talking actor President.
Click to expand...


You have Reagan derangement syndrome like most liberals Reagan Belived what he spoke, he He knew America could do what it set it's mind to do...So did the Soviets


----------



## Toro

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time.  He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!
Click to expand...


Good times.  Good times.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Here is the REAL Reaganomics that the Reaganut worshipers worship saying he created 20 million jobs,blah blah blah blah exposed for the lies they are.The reaganuts of course wont watch this video so before they go and say Rachel Maddows has no credibility,problem is,its not JUST Rachel Madows saying it.
> 
> This video exposes and proves what i was saying earlier that actual sources from back then in the 80's exposed the myth of reagan.
> 
> As you'll see in thei video,actual mainstream newscasts from back then like MSNBC and The washington post as well prove that reagan betrayed the middle class.that his trickle down economics only enriched the top 1% and betrayed everyone else.
> 
> Rachel Maddow GOP tax bonus for rich ignores failure of Reaganomics - YouTube



true to form the reaganut worshippers prove they afriad of the truth refusing to listen to actual newsources back from the 1980's in their original broadcasts broadcast the truth that he betrayed the middle class.so predicatable are the reaganuts.

Its not ME saying it,its actual media sources from the 80's reporting it. as they would find out if they would take their hands away from their ears and away from their eyes.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Friends said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs, you lost your media monopoly, you look like idiots trying to rewrite the Reagan years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During Jimmy Carter's presidency an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs per year.
> 
> Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ
> 
> The highest unemployment rate under Carter was 7.8 percent. The highest under Reagan was 10.8 percent.
> 
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
> 
> Jimmy Carter paid down the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. Reagan  nearly tripled it.
> 
> File:US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP by President.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> National Debt Graph by President
> 
> The ugly, sordid reality of the Reagan years is obvious to everyone but an ideological fool.
Click to expand...


so very true well said.anytime you confront them with pesky facts liek that,all they come back with is juvenile one liners.

this is also a fact that reinforces what you say,that proves that under reagan,his first term in office,we were no better off than him than under carter and that unemployment was higher his first term in office than under carter just as my video I posted a few posts back"that they wont watch since the truth hurts" proves our links to be correct.

Here is what I posted earlier that reinforces what you posted that they also ignored.

MYTH.

Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it


Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.

Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s. 



Summary 

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms. 



Argument 

In 1980, the "misery index" -- unemployment plus inflation -- crested 20 percent for the first time since World War II. Ronald Reagan blamed this on Jimmy Carter, and went on to win the White House. Reagan then caught the business cycle on an upswing, for what conservatives call "the Seven Fat Years" or "the longest economic expansion in peacetime history." 

Were either of these presidents responsible for their fortune with the economy? No. Carter battled the peak of an inflationary trend that began in 1965. In the following chart, take special notice of the long, slow climb in the inflation column:

Year    Inflation  Unemployment (1)
-------------------------------
1961      1.0%      6.7%
1962      1.0       5.6
1963      1.3       5.6
1964      1.3       5.2
1965      1.6       4.5  < Vietnam war spending increases
1966      2.9       3.8
1967      3.1       3.8
1968      4.2       3.5
1969      5.5       3.5
1970      5.7       5.0
1971      4.4       6.0
1972      3.2       5.6
1973      6.2       4.9
1974     11.0       5.6  < First oil crisis
1975      9.1       8.5
1976      5.8       7.7
1977      6.5       7.1
1978      7.6       6.1
1979     11.3       5.9  < Second oil crisis
1980     13.5       7.2
1981     10.3       7.6
1982      6.2       9.7
1983      3.2       9.6
1984      4.3       7.5
In 1965, President Johnson started increasing deficit spending to fund the Vietnam war. This fiscal policy (as predicted by Keynesian theory) increased inflation and reduced unemployment. 

Unfortunately, inflation is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If business owners expect it, and raise their prices by the anticipated amount to compensate for it, then they have created the very inflation they fear. This process forms a vicious circle -- inflationary expectations and price increases feed off each other, with the potential of creating hyper-inflation. Unfortunately, economic theory at the time was such that economists didn't know how to stop it, at least safely. 

Growing inflation in the 70s received two huge boosts: the first comprised the late-1973 and 1979 oil shocks from OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). Soaring oil prices compelled most American businesses to raise their prices as well, with inflationary results. The second boost to inflation came in the form of food harvest failures around the world, which created soaring prices on the world food market. Again, U.S. companies that imported food responded with an inflationary rise in their prices. 

All this was accompanied by a growing crisis in monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. Traditionally, the Fed has fought inflation by contracting the money supply, and fought unemployment by expanding it. In the 60s, the Fed conducted an expansionary policy, accepting higher inflation in return for lower unemployment. It soon became clear, however, that this strategy was flawed. Expanding the money supply created jobs because it put more money in the hands of employers and consumers, who spent it. But eventually businesses learned to expect these monetary increases, and they simply raised their prices by the anticipated amount (instead of hiring more workers). The result was that the Fed gradually lost its ability to keep down unemployment; the more money it pumped into the economy, the more businesses raised their prices. As a result, both inflation and unemployment started growing together, forming a twin monster that economist Paul Samuelson dubbed "stagflation." 

Stagflation happened to reach its peak on Carter's watch, spurred on by the 1979 oil shock. How Carter can be blamed for a trend that began a decade and a half earlier is a mystery -- and a testimony as to how presidential candidates often exploit the public's economic ignorance for their own political gain. 

However, Carter did in fact take a tremendously important step in ending stagflation. He nominated Paul Volcker for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker was committed to eradicating stagflation by giving the nation some bitter medicine: an intentional recession. In 1980, Volcker tightened the money supply, which stopped job growth in the economy. In response to hard times, businesses began cutting their prices, and workers their wage demands, to stay in business. Volcker argued that eventually this would wring inflationary expectations out of the system. 

The recovery of 1981 was unintentional, and with inflation still high, Volcker tightened the money supply even more severely in 1982. This resulted in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment in the final quarter of 1982 soared to over 10 percent, and Volcker was accused of the "cold-blooded murder of millions of jobs." Even high-ranking members of Reagan's staff were vehemently opposed to his actions. Congress actually considered bringing the independent Fed under the government's direct control, to avoid such economic pain in the future. Today, economists calculate that the cost of Volcker's anti-inflation medicine was $1 trillion -- an astounding sum. But Wall Street demanded that Volcker stay the course, and that may have been the only thing that saved him. 

In the late summer of 1982, inflation looked defeated, so Volcker sharply expanded the money supply. Once as high as 14 percent in 1981, the Fed's discount rate fell from 11 to 8.5 percent between August and December 1982. Within months, the economy roared to life, and took off on an expansion that would last seven years. Because the recession had been so deep, and the number of available workers so large (with not only laid-off workers waiting to return to work, but also a record number of women seeking to join the workforce), the recovery was guaranteed to be long and healthy. 

Interestingly, Volcker was transformed from villain to hero after the victory over inflation. His reputation and integrity were so unquestioned that when his term as Chairman came up for renewal, Reagan renominated him with overwhelming popular approval. Another interesting tidbit is that although Volcker's intentional recession was a classically Keynesian approach to combating inflation, he did so under the name of "monetarism". (The policies recommended by the two theories converged at this point.) Milton Friedman, the creator of monetarist theory, and other conservatives were pleased that the Fed had finally converted to monetarism. However, they were outraged in late 1982 when Volcker threw off the cloak of monetarism and openly returned to Keynesian policies for expanding the economy. Most economists now accept that the Fed was not monetarist at all during this period, and that the label was merely political cover for drastic but necessary action. 

Of course, conservatives have a far different interpretation of these events. Let's review their arguments: 

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW 

According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business. 

There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product:

Federal tax receipts and spending (percent of GDP) (2)

Year    Receipts  Spending
-------------------------
Carter
1978     18.5%    21.3%
1979     19.1     20.7
1980     19.6     22.3
1981     20.2     22.9
Reagan
1982     19.8     23.9
1983     18.1     24.4
1984     18.0     23.1
1985     18.5     23.9
1986     18.2     23.5
1987     19.2     22.5
1988     18.9     22.1
1989     19.2     22.1
To claim that such a minor increase could produce crippling stagflation is to ascribe to the economy an extraordinary sensitivity to taxation. Although many conservative laymen would gladly accept such a notion, it is not one entertained by serious economists. West Germany in the 1980s, for example, had a total taxation rate of 39 percent of its GDP (compared to 29 percent of combined government taxes for the U.S.), and during that decade Germany was an economic powerhouse. If even a few percentage points are the difference between Carter's stagflation and Reagan's boom years, then by all rights West Germany should have been dead. 

But that's only the general level of taxation -- what about the top rate? Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

Conservatives also criticize Carter's promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy's operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter's actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period's stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours:

Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%) (3)

                1950s  1960s  1970s  1980s  1990
------------------------------------------------
United States   100%   100    100    100    100
Canada          77.1   80.1   84.2   92.8   95.5
Italy           30.8   43.9   66.4   80.9   85.5
France          36.8   46.0   61.7   80.1   85.3
Germany         32.4   49.1   61.8   77.4   81.1
United Kingdom  53.9   54.3   58.0   65.9   71.9
Japan           15.2   23.2   45.7   62.6   70.7
Furthermore, Reagan systematically slashed and burned government regulations, but individual worker productivity grew no faster in the 80s than it had during the late 70s (about 1 percent for both periods). 

As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession. 

Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s:

Private investment (4)

1970 - 1979   18.6%
1980 - 1992   17.4
So there is no evidence that the conservative revisionism is true. 

 Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Inflation: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-U (1982-84=100), not seasonally adjusted, table CUUR0000SA0. Unemployment: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID : lfs21000000.

2. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Table 1.2 

3. Where We Stand, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, eds., and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), p. 143. 

4. Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity, (New York: W.W. Norton &


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time.  He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!
Click to expand...


56 states?  Is this some kind of joke?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time.  He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 56 states?  Is this some kind of joke?
Click to expand...


The joke is in the White House who claims there are 57 states. Reagan only missed 1 in 1984, you do the math.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 56 states?  Is this some kind of joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The joke is in the White House who claims there are 57 states. Reagan only missed 1 in 1984, you do the math.
Click to expand...


Oh, was this your way of being clever, Obama misspoke once. 

Of course, the problem with Romney is he really meant the things he said... you know, like he liked to fire people and half the country are leeches. 

WHich is why he lost.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan talked to and compromised with Democrats all the time.  He had a commitment to making government work, not throw temper tantrums or not talk to the other side as both parties are doing today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even AFTER his 56 state victory in 1984!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 56 states?  Is this some kind of joke?
Click to expand...


No telepromter sucks, He actually didn't include Alaska and Hawaii in the "57"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws]Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

Bush sounded like a retard WITH a teleprompter...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEbZqvMu2cQ]Must See Hilarious George Bush Bloopers! - VERY FUNNY - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## thanatos144

You progressives  are just going to have to deal with the fact that  Ronald Reagan hurt your cause to destroy the United States of America


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> You progressives  are just going to have to deal with the fact that  Ronald Reagan hurt your cause to destroy the United States of America



Really?  

I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.  

Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet. 

The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You progressives  are just going to have to deal with the fact that  Ronald Reagan hurt your cause to destroy the United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
Click to expand...


Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You progressives  are just going to have to deal with the fact that  Ronald Reagan hurt your cause to destroy the United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
Click to expand...


Guy, I lived through the 1980's.  They weren't that impressive. It started with a recession and ended with a recession.  

Fact was, Unemployment was as bad at the end of Reagan's first term as it was when he took office.


----------



## Camp

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You progressives  are just going to have to deal with the fact that  Ronald Reagan hurt your cause to destroy the United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
Click to expand...


I was there. Spent large amounts of time and money helping fight the Agent Orange battle with the Reagan Administration and finding shelter for homeless vet's.


----------



## thanatos144

I love this. The entire reason Ryan Reagan is hated it because liberals hate that he destroyed the giant communist Empire


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> I love this. The entire reason *Ryan Reagan *is hated it because liberals hate that he destroyed the giant communist Empire



Ryan Reagan?  


No, the reason why Reagan is hated is because he destroyed the middle class.


----------



## editec

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You progressives  are just going to have to deal with the fact that  Ronald Reagan hurt your cause to destroy the United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
Click to expand...


Well I'm not too young to remember, lad.

Reagan's contribution to the mess we're in now is obvious.

Doubt me?

Do your own reseach into the size of government, the size of the deficit and the sixe of the national debt.

Everything the right wing mytholgy yells us about Reagan  is a big fat lie.

the datas are there so there's NO excuse for being fooled other than you WANT to be fooled.


----------



## JoeB131

editec said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm not too young to remember, lad.
> 
> Reagan's contribution to the mess we're in now is obvious.
> 
> Doubt me?
> 
> Do your own reseach into the size of government, the size of the deficit and the sixe of the national debt.
> 
> Everything the right wing mytholgy yells us about Reagan  is a big fat lie.
> 
> the datas are there so there's NO excuse for being fooled other than you WANT to be fooled.
Click to expand...


And this is the problem. 

The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for. 

But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.  

And thus a legend is born.


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this. The entire reason *Ryan Reagan *is hated it because liberals hate that he destroyed the giant communist Empire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan Reagan?
> 
> 
> No, the reason why Reagan is hated is because he destroyed the middle class.
Click to expand...


Reagan's roll in "destroying the giant communist Empire" has been debated and argued about by historians for over 20 years.  To make it as a statement of fact is disingenuous. The same can be said about his economic policies. As years go by and history is written by those further removed from the politics and emotions of that era, a more objective view is taken. This is why the Reagan fans have found it neccessary to revise the history of Reagan's history as it took it's natural and normal course of being written. They didn't like the facts and so they have seeded the history, and continue to do so, with distorted interpretations of events.
In time, these debatable events and viewpoints will only be argued by scholars and history buffs. It is discussed today because of the many who are still attached to the Reagan myth and how it impacts the view of conservatism. As conservatism has changed, Reagan and his ideas have less and less relevence. Like the policies and ideas of most past Presidents, they get washed away with time and the changes created by the passing of time.
The ideas and parts of history that will not wash away and not be contested are the Iran/Contra debacle that helped created an era of terrorist attacks on Americans and made him quilty of conducting an illegal war in Central America. Iran/Contra also led to his having the most corrupt administration in history, if one judges corruption by the number of indictments, convictions and pardons in an administration. These are the things that are sticking in the Reagan legacy and can not be removed. They are the things that will be written in the description of Reagan in the few short sentences that will follow his name in the long list of past and future Presidents.


----------



## regent

JoeB131 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not too young to remember, lad.
> 
> Reagan's contribution to the mess we're in now is obvious.
> 
> Doubt me?
> 
> Do your own reseach into the size of government, the size of the deficit and the sixe of the national debt.
> 
> Everything the right wing mytholgy yells us about Reagan  is a big fat lie.
> 
> the datas are there so there's NO excuse for being fooled other than you WANT to be fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is the problem.
> 
> The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for.
> 
> But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.
> 
> And thus a legend is born.
Click to expand...


The beauty of Reagan is he could do all the things above and yet convince people he did just the opposite. Why is that? Was it his acting ability, his little grin, did he believe his own words, or did people want to believe, just what? 
Was his whole presidency one giant acting role and even he and the audience didn't know it? If so it deserves an academy award, it still today gets  good revues today. 
Did he in fact, not remember 124 times when questioned by the Iran-Contra Congressional committee? But his best scene was the tear down the wall take.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not too young to remember, lad.
> 
> Reagan's contribution to the mess we're in now is obvious.
> 
> Doubt me?
> 
> Do your own reseach into the size of government, the size of the deficit and the sixe of the national debt.
> 
> Everything the right wing mytholgy yells us about Reagan  is a big fat lie.
> 
> the datas are there so there's NO excuse for being fooled other than you WANT to be fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is the problem.
> 
> The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for.
> 
> But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.
> 
> And thus a legend is born.
Click to expand...


We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not too young to remember, lad.
> 
> Reagan's contribution to the mess we're in now is obvious.
> 
> Doubt me?
> 
> Do your own reseach into the size of government, the size of the deficit and the sixe of the national debt.
> 
> Everything the right wing mytholgy yells us about Reagan  is a big fat lie.
> 
> the datas are there so there's NO excuse for being fooled other than you WANT to be fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the problem.
> 
> The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for.
> 
> But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.
> 
> And thus a legend is born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending
Click to expand...


Coming up with excuses is not the same as explaining. Coming up with excuses is what one does when one can not explain or justify.


----------



## Meathead

What a lot of fools cannot comprehend is that there is a direct correlation between Reagan's relevance in today's world and communism's irrelevance.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> What a lot of fools cannot comprehend is that there is a direct correlation between Reagan's relevance in today's world and communism's irrelevance.



You know Russia and China still exist right? Are you just excited that the word "communism" is no longer used as much or what?


----------



## Impenitent

"Miss You"

I've been holding out so long
I've been eating jelly beans all alone
Lord I miss you
I've been hanging on the phone
I've been demagoguing wefare queens all alone
I can't replace you

Well, I've been haunted in my sleep
Unions and welfare would slowly creep
Lord I miss you
I've been wanting taxes to fall
And been waiting on your call
When the phone rings
It's just some friends of mine that say,
"Hey, what's the matter man?
We're gonna come around at twelve
With some Republicans that are just dyin' to meet you.
We're gonna bloviate and whine
Hey, let's go mess with black folks minds
You know, like we used to"

Oh everybody waits so long
Oh Ronnie,why do we wait so long
Won't your replacement come on! Come on!*

I've been walking in Central Park
Thinking days are looking dark
People saying I'm becoming reclusive
But what's with the party being so inclusive?

I've been stumbling on my feet
Wondering where's the next red meat
So conflicted about demographics
Asking people, "Why are we acting so damned democratic?"

Sometimes I want to say to myself
Sometimes I say

Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
Oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh oooh
I miss you Ronnie

I guess I'm lying to myself
It's just you and no one else
Lord I was thinking of you, Ronnie
Last time I was at Reagan International to fly out
Who else would get in the bathtub to
Let government die out?
Lord, I miss you, Ronnie, yeah


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the problem.
> 
> The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for.
> 
> But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.
> 
> And thus a legend is born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming up with excuses is not the same as explaining. Coming up with excuses is what one does when one can not explain or justify.
Click to expand...


It's not an "excuse"...Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neil to cut spending was one that Democrats later reneged on.  That's a fact.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a lot of fools cannot comprehend is that there is a direct correlation between Reagan's relevance in today's world and communism's irrelevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Russia and China still exist right? Are you just excited that the word "communism" is no longer used as much or what?
Click to expand...

I am satisfied by communism's irrelevance. I understand that it is difficult for some to accept. Reagan smelled "blood", and the rest is history!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was there. Spent large amounts of time and money helping fight the Agent Orange battle with the Reagan Administration and finding shelter for homeless vet's.
Click to expand...


Uh huh. Agent Orange.  Sure. Paraquat too, amiright?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the problem.
> 
> The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for.
> 
> But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.
> 
> And thus a legend is born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coming up with excuses is not the same as explaining. Coming up with excuses is what one does when one can not explain or justify.
Click to expand...


Reagan was not a dictator, even after his 56 state victory, he had to work with a Congress controlled by the Democrats.

Here watch this, you might learn something

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EISWIY9bG8]Three Branches of Government School House Rock - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending



No, not really.  the only difference between Reagan's numbers and the Democrats numbers is that Reagan wanted to spend more on defense, and the Democrats wanted to spend more on social programs, but BOTH increased dramatically on Reagan's watch while revenues shrank.


----------



## Oldstyle

That might be true, Joe but it doesn't change the *fact* that Reagan and Tip O'Neil worked out a compromise that the Democratically controlled House then reneged on.  If the cuts had been done per the agreement reached, Reagan wouldn't have spent as much.

What happened between Reagan and the Democrats underscores one of the problems that we now face...conservatives don't trust liberals to keep their word because quite frankly, they've been burned before when doing so.  When Harry Reid says that he needs a "clean bill" and THEN he'll be ready to negotiate on anything...conservatives (from experience) don't believe him.  They think that ole' Harry will get what he wanted and then give zero in return.


----------



## bendog

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming up with excuses is not the same as explaining. Coming up with excuses is what one does when one can not explain or justify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an "excuse"...Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neil to cut spending was one that Democrats later reneged on.  That's a fact.
Click to expand...


I recall ongoing battles, but not an outright reneging on a deal.  Please give me more info.  (I did google)


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really.  the only difference between Reagan's numbers and the Democrats numbers is that Reagan wanted to spend more on defense, and the Democrats wanted to spend more on social programs, but BOTH increased dramatically on Reagan's watch while revenues shrank.
Click to expand...


Revenues "shrank"?

How do you define "Shrank"?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> We can explain it as many time as we need to: Reagan had to work with a Democrat Controlled congress who lied to him and the people about cutting spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really.  the only difference between Reagan's numbers and the Democrats numbers is that Reagan wanted to spend more on defense, and the Democrats wanted to spend more on social programs, but BOTH increased dramatically on Reagan's watch while revenues shrank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revenues "shrank"?
> 
> How do you define "Shrank"?
Click to expand...


You know.  We went from 1 Trillion in debt in the first 200 years of our history to 4 trillion when Ray-Gun left office in an Alzheimer's induced daze.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really.  the only difference between Reagan's numbers and the Democrats numbers is that Reagan wanted to spend more on defense, and the Democrats wanted to spend more on social programs, but BOTH increased dramatically on Reagan's watch while revenues shrank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues "shrank"?
> 
> How do you define "Shrank"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know.  We went from 1 Trillion in debt in the first 200 years of our history to 4 trillion when Ray-Gun left office in an Alzheimer's induced daze.
Click to expand...


Revenue didn't "shrank."  However, it did not grow as fast as it should have given the economic expansion.


----------



## Care4all

Oldstyle said:


> That might be true, Joe but it doesn't change the *fact* that Reagan and Tip O'Neil worked out a compromise that the Democratically controlled House then reneged on.  If the cuts had been done per the agreement reached, Reagan wouldn't have spent as much.
> 
> What happened between Reagan and the Democrats underscores one of the problems that we now face...conservatives don't trust liberals to keep their word because quite frankly, they've been burned before when doing so.  When Harry Reid says that he needs a "clean bill" and THEN he'll be ready to negotiate on anything...conservatives (from experience) don't believe him.  They think that ole' Harry will get what he wanted and then give zero in return.


Why did the Republican majority senate pass the house's spending bills?  

Why didn't Reagan veto the spending bills you claim he was against?  or did he veto them and congress over rode the vetoes with 2/3 rds voting to do such?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not really.  the only difference between Reagan's numbers and the Democrats numbers is that Reagan wanted to spend more on defense, and the Democrats wanted to spend more on social programs, but BOTH increased dramatically on Reagan's watch while revenues shrank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues "shrank"?
> 
> How do you define "Shrank"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know.  We went from 1 Trillion in debt in the first 200 years of our history to 4 trillion when Ray-Gun left office in an Alzheimer's induced daze.
Click to expand...


Revenues shrank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues "shrank"?
> 
> How do you define "Shrank"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know.  We went from 1 Trillion in debt in the first 200 years of our history to 4 trillion when Ray-Gun left office in an Alzheimer's induced daze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revenue didn't "shrank."  However, it did not grow as fast as it should have given the economic expansion.
Click to expand...


You're confusing the US economy with the federal government. The economy did great under Reagan


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was there. Spent large amounts of time and money helping fight the Agent Orange battle with the Reagan Administration and finding shelter for homeless vet's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh. Agent Orange.  Sure. Paraquat too, amiright?
Click to expand...


Not sure if you are mocking, ignorant or in denial.


----------



## Oldstyle

Care4all said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That might be true, Joe but it doesn't change the *fact* that Reagan and Tip O'Neil worked out a compromise that the Democratically controlled House then reneged on.  If the cuts had been done per the agreement reached, Reagan wouldn't have spent as much.
> 
> What happened between Reagan and the Democrats underscores one of the problems that we now face...conservatives don't trust liberals to keep their word because quite frankly, they've been burned before when doing so.  When Harry Reid says that he needs a "clean bill" and THEN he'll be ready to negotiate on anything...conservatives (from experience) don't believe him.  They think that ole' Harry will get what he wanted and then give zero in return.
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the Republican majority senate pass the house's spending bills?
> 
> Why didn't Reagan veto the spending bills you claim he was against?  or did he veto them and congress over rode the vetoes with 2/3 rds voting to do such?
Click to expand...


Unlike Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan understood that in order for a divided government to function each side had to make compromises.  Reagan had a good working relationship with Tip O'Neil throughout his Presidency.  Obama doesn't even understand the concept.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> You're confusing the US economy with the federal government. The economy did great under Reagan



It did great for the rich. 

It didn't do shit for the middle class.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [quo
> 
> Unlike Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan understood that in order for a divided government to function each side had to make compromises.  Reagan had a good working relationship with Tip O'Neil throughout his Presidency.  Obama doesn't even understand the concept.



Tip O'Neill didn't come out on day one and say, "I hope he Fails".


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues "shrank"?
> 
> How do you define "Shrank"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know.  We went from 1 Trillion in debt in the first 200 years of our history to 4 trillion when Ray-Gun left office in an Alzheimer's induced daze.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revenues shrank?
Click to expand...


Yup.  After adjusting for inflation, the government was bringing in less money.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Unlike Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan understood that in order for a divided government to function each side had to make compromises.  Reagan had a good working relationship with Tip O'Neil throughout his Presidency.  Obama doesn't even understand the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tip O'Neill didn't come out on day one and say, "I hope he Fails".
Click to expand...


That could be  because unlike Obama, Reagan's plan was not to destroy the United States of America


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know.  We went from 1 Trillion in debt in the first 200 years of our history to 4 trillion when Ray-Gun left office in an Alzheimer's induced daze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues shrank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  After adjusting for inflation, the government was bringing in less money.
Click to expand...


What a deceitful f****** statement the only way that is true is if you don't adjust the revenue for inflation


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


bot


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Unlike Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan understood that in order for a divided government to function each side had to make compromises.  Reagan had a good working relationship with Tip O'Neil throughout his Presidency.  Obama doesn't even understand the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tip O'Neill didn't come out on day one and say, "I hope he Fails".
Click to expand...


Tip O'Neill is not a radio talk show host, OFA Boy


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Unlike Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan understood that in order for a divided government to function each side had to make compromises.  Reagan had a good working relationship with Tip O'Neil throughout his Presidency.  Obama doesn't even understand the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tip O'Neill didn't come out on day one and say, "I hope he Fails".
Click to expand...


Ronald Reagan didn't sit across from Tip O'Neil and say "Elections have consequences...I won!"  That right there is the PERFECT example of the difference between two Presidents.
What Obama did when he lectured the GOP leaders in that way at the very start of his first term didn't do anything to build a working relationship with those across the aisle.  Obama's attitude was to rub salt in the wound...to tell the GOP leaders that he didn't CARE what they thought because HE had control and HE was going to do what HE wanted!  You libs now whine about how the GOP was out to "get" Barack Obama right from the start but that wasn't the case at all.  That loathing of the President by the GOP (and make no mistake...they DO loath him!) didn't take place until the Obama Administration's "my way or the highway" style of governing began.  The political well was poisoned but not by the GOP...the poisoning took place during the period of time that the Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the Oval Office and delighted in giving the Republicans nothing.  The GOP got locked out in the hall while Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did whatever they felt like.  The Republicans might as well have packed up and gone home at that point.  The Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party were in total control of the nation's agenda and they couldn't care less about what conservatives were concerned about.  Pelosi and Reid seized the moment.  While the country was mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression and millions were out of work and suffering...Nancy and Harry used the majorities that crisis had given them...not to pass legislation that would put average Americans back to work...oh no...they used their majorities to push for government controlled health care.  THAT was their number one priority.  They heeded Rahm Emanuel's advice about "never letting a crisis go to waste" and ignored the millions who needed work and pushed through a law that hurt job growth.

Then you liberals wonder *why* conservatives dislike Barry, Harry and Nancy?  Duh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know.  We went from 1 Trillion in debt in the first 200 years of our history to 4 trillion when Ray-Gun left office in an Alzheimer's induced daze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues shrank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  After adjusting for inflation, the government was bringing in less money.
Click to expand...


Because you say so?


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Unlike Barack Obama...Ronald Reagan understood that in order for a divided government to function each side had to make compromises.  Reagan had a good working relationship with Tip O'Neil throughout his Presidency.  Obama doesn't even understand the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tip O'Neill didn't come out on day one and say, "I hope he Fails".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That could be  because unlike Obama, Reagan's plan was not to destroy the United States of America
Click to expand...


Really?  Quadrupling the National Debt, shipping all the good paying jobs to Asia, (The Japanese paid him a 1 Million dollar speaking fee after he left office) busting up the Middle Class.  

Looks like he pretty much destroyed America to me.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revenues shrank?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  After adjusting for inflation, the government was bringing in less money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a deceitful f****** statement the only way that is true is if you don't adjust the revenue for inflation
Click to expand...


No, adjusting for inflation, less money in real dollars was coming in. 

Partially because Reagan busted up all those nice middle class jobs. 

Partially because he gave obscene tax breaks to the rich before he had to backtrack and raise taxes on them again.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  After adjusting for inflation, the government was bringing in less money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a deceitful f****** statement the only way that is true is if you don't adjust the revenue for inflation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, adjusting for inflation, less money in real dollars was coming in.
> 
> Partially because Reagan busted up all those nice middle class jobs.
> 
> Partially because he gave obscene tax breaks to the rich before he had to backtrack and raise taxes on them again.
Click to expand...

Go learn some math idiot


----------



## JoeB131

Guy, go back and look at budget numbers.  Reagan's budgets were oceans of red ink.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, go back and look at budget numbers.  Reagan's budgets were oceans of red ink.



That's the way you progressives like it.... Mostly because your all to fucking stupid to learn how to add and subtract.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, go back and look at budget numbers.  Reagan's budgets were oceans of red ink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way you progressives like it.... Mostly because your all* to *fucking stupid to learn how to add and subtract.
Click to expand...


Guy, you don't know the difference between "too" and "to", something fourth graders usually manage.  

Point was, Reagan cut taxes and increased spending on the military.  More money going out, less money coming in.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that works.


----------



## Pauli007001

Joeys lying up a storm again!!
Though his valid point, you can't spend more than you have...............

Isn't that a tea party talking point?

Yet the fanatics rile against the tea party with the most vicious hate and vitriol!!
Didn't all the support their hero who has been instigating the mass murder of children of suspected tea party members!


----------



## JoeB131

Pauli007001 said:


> Joeys lying up a storm again!!
> Though his valid point, you can't spend more than you have...............
> 
> Isn't that a tea party talking point?
> 
> Yet the fanatics rile against the tea party with the most vicious hate and vitriol!!
> Didn't all the support their hero who has been instigating the mass murder of children of suspected tea party members!



THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget. 

Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it. 

So borrowing from China we go.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeys lying up a storm again!!
> Though his valid point, you can't spend more than you have...............
> 
> Isn't that a tea party talking point?
> 
> Yet the fanatics rile against the tea party with the most vicious hate and vitriol!!
> Didn't all the support their hero who has been instigating the mass murder of children of suspected tea party members!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.
> 
> Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.
> 
> So borrowing from China we go.
Click to expand...


What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind.  Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people.  The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for.  It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy.  But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeys lying up a storm again!!
> Though his valid point, you can't spend more than you have...............
> 
> Isn't that a tea party talking point?
> 
> Yet the fanatics rile against the tea party with the most vicious hate and vitriol!!
> Didn't all the support their hero who has been instigating the mass murder of children of suspected tea party members!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.
> 
> Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.
> 
> So borrowing from China we go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind.  Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people.  The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for.  It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy.  But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.
Click to expand...


They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government. 

There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country.  The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year.  The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth.  The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.  

Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy.  Done.


----------



## Pauli007001

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.
> 
> Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.
> 
> So borrowing from China we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind.  Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people.  The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for.  It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy.  But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.
> 
> There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country.  The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year.  The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth.  The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.
> 
> Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy.  Done.
Click to expand...


So a 75% tax rate ?

So those who make these trillions and re invest will have 75% less to re invest in the country.

What effect will that have, idiot?


----------



## JoeB131

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind.  Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people.  The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for.  It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy.  But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.
> 
> There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country.  The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year.  The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth.  The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.
> 
> Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy.  Done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a 75% tax rate ?
> 
> So those who make these trillions and re invest will have 75% less to re invest in the country.
> 
> What effect will that have, idiot?
Click to expand...


A pretty fucking awesome one, actually.  

Under Ike, the top marginal tax rate was 93% if you made $400,000 in 1951 dollars. (That would be about 3.6 million today.) 

And with that, we built an  interstate highway system that made us the most competitive country in the world, we invested in first rate schools and universities, we poured billions into research and development that brought advances in technology.  

Certainly a lot more than if the rich assholes were just allowed to invest in Dressage Horses and swimming pools.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.
> 
> There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country.  The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year.  The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth.  The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.
> 
> Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy.  Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a 75% tax rate ?
> 
> So those who make these trillions and re invest will have 75% less to re invest in the country.
> 
> What effect will that have, idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pretty fucking awesome one, actually.
> 
> Under Ike, the top marginal tax rate was 93% if you made $400,000 in 1951 dollars. (That would be about 3.6 million today.)
> 
> And with that, we built an  interstate highway system that made us the most competitive country in the world, we invested in first rate schools and universities, we poured billions into research and development that brought advances in technology.
> 
> Certainly a lot more than if the rich assholes were just allowed to invest in Dressage Horses and swimming pools.
Click to expand...

Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.

Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> [Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.
> 
> Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.



Guy, you had to move to Germany's Doormat to succeed because you couldn't hack it here. 

But, no, man, the Wealthy aren't as important as they think they are.  They are parasites that have convinced stupid people they are vital organs.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.
> 
> Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you had to move to Germany's Doormat to succeed because you couldn't hack it here.
> 
> But, no, man, the Wealthy aren't as important as they think they are.  They are parasites that have convinced stupid people they are vital organs.
Click to expand...

You live in Chicago ffs! 

Unfortunately, parasites are people like you on the public dole who are too lazy or too incompetent to hold a job. The rich have to bail your sorry asses out in the name of humanity.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.
> 
> Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you had to move to Germany's Doormat to succeed because you couldn't hack it here.
> 
> But, no, man, the Wealthy aren't as important as they think they are.  They are parasites that have convinced stupid people they are vital organs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in Chicago ffs!
> 
> Unfortunately, parasites are people like you on the public dole who are too lazy or too incompetent to hold a job. The rich have to bail your sorry asses out in the name of humanity.
Click to expand...


The rich have no humanity... that's the problem.


----------



## thanatos144

Explains a lot that Blow job Joe gets his political point of views from B Sci-Fi movies.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.
> 
> Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.
> 
> So borrowing from China we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind.  Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people.  The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for.  It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy.  But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.
> 
> There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country.  The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year.  The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth.  The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.
> 
> Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy.  Done.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is typical, Joe.  Yeah, go ahead and tax the wealthy and see how quickly we're "done".  What naive liberals like yourself never seem to grasp is that the wealthy are very good at protecting capital.  It's why they have it in the first place!  They aren't stationary targets that will cheerfully sign over what they have.  That money will be going into tax shelters or out of the country just as soon as your proposed tax on the rich winds it's way through Congress.

You see wealth being "held" by the rich which you'd seize to pay for our out of control government spending.  So your "plan" is to siphon off this wealth from the Private Sector and use that to prop up the Public Sector...and yet you expect this to have no effect on the economy?

Here's a hint, Sparky...you can't punish the wealthy for having money and expect them to invest their money.  They won't.  They'll take that wealth and they will invest it in an economy that isn't punishing them for making a profit.  Look at New Jersey and what happened to them when they tried passing a "millionaires tax" because it's a microcosm of what would happen to the US if they did the same thing.

Our government at the moment resembles a large bucket riddled with holes that water is pouring out of.  Rather than fix the holes...your solution is to pour more water into the bucket.


----------



## Camp

Presidents don't get remembered for contoversial issues that are debated decades after they leave office. They get remembered for tangible non-controversial things that people can understand with a few short sentences. Reagan rivisionist are pushing against that. It won't work.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Presidents don't get remembered for contoversial issues that are debated decades after they leave office. They get remembered for tangible non-controversial things that people can understand with a few short sentences. Reagan rivisionist are pushing against that. It won't work.


"_Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office_" 

Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents don't get remembered for contoversial issues that are debated decades after they leave office. They get remembered for tangible non-controversial things that people can understand with a few short sentences. Reagan rivisionist are pushing against that. It won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> "_Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office_"
> 
> Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.
Click to expand...


Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by  hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.


----------



## Oldstyle

Gotta love Synth...he gives me a neg rep for the post I made to someone pointing out that even taking all of the wealth of the rich still wouldn't pay for the entitlements we've obligated ourselves to and what does he put down for his obligatory "reason" for the neg rep?

This...  ( . )  A period.  That's his reasoned and well thought out rebuttal.  A period.  Which is why he IS the partisan hack that he is.  Get back to me when you've actually got a response that's intelligent enough to be posted, Synth because right now you're coming across as an internet blowhard.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents don't get remembered for contoversial issues that are debated decades after they leave office. They get remembered for tangible non-controversial things that people can understand with a few short sentences. Reagan rivisionist are pushing against that. It won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> "_Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office_"
> 
> Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by  hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.
Click to expand...

You're all over the place here Camp. Do you have any idea what it is you are trying to explain?

You argue that presidents do not get remembered when people debate their presidency. Did you notice the title and subject of this thread? The man left office 25 years ago and some are still so upset at his successes they feel compelled to feebily attack his legacy. 

Sure Camp, Reagan is long forgotten.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_Presidents don't get remembered for controversial issues debated decades after they leave office_"
> 
> Do you have any idea what you just wrote?! This is an incredible but sad example of the dumbing down of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by  hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're all over the place here Camp. Do you have any idea what it is you are trying to explain?
> 
> You argue that presidents do not get remembered when people debate their presidency. Did you notice the title and subject of this thread? The man left office 25 years ago and some are still so upset at his successes they feel compelled to feebily attack his legacy.
> 
> Sure Camp, Reagan is long forgotten.
Click to expand...


Reagan is not forgotten. 25 years is just a blink of the eye in history. Every poster on this thread has an emotional connection to the Reagan era. His ideas and policie still resonate. It is far to soon to predict how that legacy will eventually be remembered. The history will be written by objective writers without the emotional or political achors and influences. Perhaps the positive aspects of his administration will overide the negative ones. Nobody can predict that. All we can do is speculate at this point.


----------



## bendog

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ofcourse historians and scholars will continue to debate issue's and give varied interpretations of the impact a President and his administations had on history and the impact those policies have or have not had. Books will be written in a hundred years from now with new insights and views on the Reagan legacy, just as they are done with other Presidents. For the vast majority however, it will come down to a small synopsis. A quick paragraph in a text book. Unfortunatly, it often comes down to the interpretation by  hollywood writers and film producers. I can imagine a movie being made about Iran/Contra and the terrorist campaign against Americans that led to 9/11. Lots of war, action and bloodshed. I have a hard time imagining a movie about economic policies. Perhaps something about the fall of the USSR would treat him kindly. That may end up in the short synopsis, but so will the other stuff I mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> You're all over the place here Camp. Do you have any idea what it is you are trying to explain?
> 
> You argue that presidents do not get remembered when people debate their presidency. Did you notice the title and subject of this thread? The man left office 25 years ago and some are still so upset at his successes they feel compelled to feebily attack his legacy.
> 
> Sure Camp, Reagan is long forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan is not forgotten. 25 years is just a blink of the eye in history. Every poster on this thread has an emotional connection to the Reagan era. His ideas and policie still resonate. It is far to soon to predict how that legacy will eventually be remembered. The history will be written by objective writers without the emotional or political achors and influences. Perhaps the positive aspects of his administration will overide the negative ones. Nobody can predict that. All we can do is speculate at this point.
Click to expand...


He looked so good sitting on a horse though.  Not since Teddy Roosevelt ..... (-:


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Your ignorance is typical, Joe.  Yeah, go ahead and tax the wealthy and see how quickly we're "done".  What naive liberals like yourself never seem to grasp is that the wealthy are very good at protecting capital.  It's why they have it in the first place!  They aren't stationary targets that will cheerfully sign over what they have.  That money will be going into tax shelters or out of the country just as soon as your proposed tax on the rich winds it's way through Congress.
> 
> You see wealth being "held" by the rich which you'd seize to pay for our out of control government spending.  So your "plan" is to siphon off this wealth from the Private Sector and use that to prop up the Public Sector...and yet you expect this to have no effect on the economy?
> 
> Here's a hint, Sparky...you can't punish the wealthy for having money and expect them to invest their money.  They won't.  They'll take that wealth and they will invest it in an economy that isn't punishing them for making a profit.  Look at New Jersey and what happened to them when they tried passing a "millionaires tax" because it's a microcosm of what would happen to the US if they did the same thing.
> 
> Our government at the moment resembles a large bucket riddled with holes that water is pouring out of.  Rather than fix the holes...your solution is to pour more water into the bucket.



Guy, one more time. 

If the whole country taxes the Douchebags at an appropriate rate, where the fuck are they going to go live?  France?   I hear they are trying to tax the rich at 75% there.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Your ignorance is typical, Joe.  Yeah, go ahead and tax the wealthy and see how quickly we're "done".  What naive liberals like yourself never seem to grasp is that the wealthy are very good at protecting capital.  It's why they have it in the first place!  They aren't stationary targets that will cheerfully sign over what they have.  That money will be going into tax shelters or out of the country just as soon as your proposed tax on the rich winds it's way through Congress.
> 
> You see wealth being "held" by the rich which you'd seize to pay for our out of control government spending.  So your "plan" is to siphon off this wealth from the Private Sector and use that to prop up the Public Sector...and yet you expect this to have no effect on the economy?
> 
> Here's a hint, Sparky...you can't punish the wealthy for having money and expect them to invest their money.  They won't.  They'll take that wealth and they will invest it in an economy that isn't punishing them for making a profit.  Look at New Jersey and what happened to them when they tried passing a "millionaires tax" because it's a microcosm of what would happen to the US if they did the same thing.
> 
> Our government at the moment resembles a large bucket riddled with holes that water is pouring out of.  Rather than fix the holes...your solution is to pour more water into the bucket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, one more time.
> 
> If the whole country taxes the Douchebags at an appropriate rate, where the fuck are they going to go live?  France?   I hear they are trying to tax the rich at 75% there.
Click to expand...


Yes, Joe...if the entire country goes after their capital then the "Douchebags" will go live elsewhere.  Great Britain tried to do what you espouse recently and it was a disaster.  Some 16,000 people had declared incomes of a million pounds per year or more before a new tax on the super wealthy was put into play...a year later that number declined to 6,000.  That means over 50% of the super wealthy either moved their principle residence out of Great Britain or took steps to change their taxable income.  That new tax actually COST Great Britain revenue.

You have no clue what you're talking about when you babble on about taxing the rich at an "appropriate" rate, Joe!  If you REALLY looked at what happens when you go that route you'd realize that it was a foolish economic tact to take.  But you can't SEE that because you're caught up in the "fairness" debate.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Yes, Joe...if the entire country goes after their capital then the "Douchebags" will go live elsewhere.  Great Britain tried to do what you espouse recently and it was a disaster.  Some 16,000 people had declared incomes of a million pounds per year or more before a new tax on the super wealthy was put into play...a year later that number declined to 6,000.  That means over 50% of the super wealthy either moved their principle residence out of Great Britain or took steps to change their taxable income.  That new tax actually COST Great Britain revenue.
> 
> You have no clue what you're talking about when you babble on about taxing the rich at an "appropriate" rate, Joe!  If you REALLY looked at what happens when you go that route you'd realize that it was a foolish economic tact to take.  But you can't SEE that because you're caught up in the "fairness" debate.



That just tells me that their version of the IRS isn't aggressive enough.  Let our rich try to pull that shit, the IRS pulls them in for a nice talk.  Maybe toss a couple of them in big-boy jail for tax evasion.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Joe...if the entire country goes after their capital then the "Douchebags" will go live elsewhere.  Great Britain tried to do what you espouse recently and it was a disaster.  Some 16,000 people had declared incomes of a million pounds per year or more before a new tax on the super wealthy was put into play...a year later that number declined to 6,000.  That means over 50% of the super wealthy either moved their principle residence out of Great Britain or took steps to change their taxable income.  That new tax actually COST Great Britain revenue.
> 
> You have no clue what you're talking about when you babble on about taxing the rich at an "appropriate" rate, Joe!  If you REALLY looked at what happens when you go that route you'd realize that it was a foolish economic tact to take.  But you can't SEE that because you're caught up in the "fairness" debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just tells me that their version of the IRS isn't aggressive enough.  Let our rich try to pull that shit, the IRS pulls them in for a nice talk.  Maybe toss a couple of them in big-boy jail for tax evasion.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes...IRS jackboots ringing in the streets!  Forget the "law"...you're going to take the money whether it's by the rules or not, right Joe!  Gee, that will have investors *flocking* to the US to set up their businesses and hire Americans!  Oh wait...why wouldn't they just choose to invest their money outside of the US where it isn't taxed at a draconian rate?  Why would anyone be stupid enough to start up the next Microsoft, Apple or General Motors in a place where profits were seized by the Federal Government like it was some two bit Banana Republic?  You'd have to be a *moron* to not start up your business in a country that wouldn't be waiting around like vultures on a tree for any potential profits.


----------



## bendog

It does make me wonder why we allow tax havens for guys like Mitt, and don't attach tax to profits kept over seas by corps (though I'm not much in favor of corp taxes, and prefer taxing passive income individually)  Not that 'soaking the rich' is a valid reason to tax anyone, but getting needed revenue is.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeys lying up a storm again!!
> Though his valid point, you can't spend more than you have...............
> 
> Isn't that a tea party talking point?
> 
> Yet the fanatics rile against the tea party with the most vicious hate and vitriol!!
> Didn't all the support their hero who has been instigating the mass murder of children of suspected tea party members!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.
> 
> Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.
> 
> So borrowing from China we go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for. .
Click to expand...


You're talking about tax on their incomes.  The rulers let slip in print that the 1% has $73 trillion in assets.   Your second delusion is that the GUBMINT! takes tax revenue and lets it all rot in some landfill.  The truth is that they circulate a cash flow with more current to it than the private market of hoarders ever can achieve.


----------



## PrometheusBound

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe reason why the Teabaggers are hated is because instead of insisting the rich pay their fair share, they insist that poor children shouldn't get food or medicine, as a way to pass their budget.
> 
> Except they know damned well they'd have riots in the streets if they ever tried it.
> 
> So borrowing from China we go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind.  Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people.  The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for.  It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy.  But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.
> 
> There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country.  The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year.  The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth.  The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.
> 
> Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy.  Done.
Click to expand...


Not that I want the rich to get off the hook, but pragmatically speaking, we can avoid default just by all the tax revenue that would come in through legalization of marijuana.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the Tea Party is asking for is less spending by the most bloated and inefficient government in the history of mankind.  Every time that they do so they are attacked by progressives for "hating" poor children or old people.  The truth is...if you took every thin dime that the "rich" have it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the entitlements that we are now obligated for.  It would however completely decimate what's left of our economy.  But you don't care about THAT...do you, Joe...oh, no...you're too worried about some rich guy not paying what YOU think is "fair" to actually do something intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're's plenty of wealth being held by the rich to more than pay for the government.
> 
> There's 54 TRILLION in wealth in this country.  The Government only spends about 3 Trillion a year.  The wealthy top 20% have 87% of that wealth.  The Top 1% have 43% of that wealth.
> 
> Higher top marginal rates, and estate taxes on the very wealthy.  Done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a 75% tax rate ?
> 
> So those who make these trillions and re invest will have 75% less to re invest in the country.
> 
> What effect will that have, idiot?
Click to expand...


Again you Pinocchios want us to believe that the Gubmint takes the tax revenue and hides it in a locked warehouse.   The rich parasites will siphon all their tax money back through increased economic activity created by government spending, idiot.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a 75% tax rate ?
> 
> So those who make these trillions and re invest will have 75% less to re invest in the country.
> 
> What effect will that have, idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pretty fucking awesome one, actually.
> 
> Under Ike, the top marginal tax rate was 93% if you made $400,000 in 1951 dollars. (That would be about 3.6 million today.)
> 
> And with that, we built an  interstate highway system that made us the most competitive country in the world, we invested in first rate schools and universities, we poured billions into research and development that brought advances in technology.
> 
> Certainly a lot more than if the rich assholes were just allowed to invest in Dressage Horses and swimming pools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.
> 
> Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.
Click to expand...


Despite plutocratic parasites taking credit for everything good that happens and having the propaganda machine to make their insulting claims stick, it was inventors who created material progress, not investors.  Investment is static, invention is dynamic.  The grand larceny of corporate patents demoralizes inventors, who are treated like Cash Cows.


----------



## PrometheusBound

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Capitalism and investment made us the most competitive country in the world. It spurred research and development and just about anything else you midget intellect can conceive.
> 
> Your epic failures are your own. Blaming the rich is not going to help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you had to move to Germany's Doormat to succeed because you couldn't hack it here.
> 
> But, no, man, the Wealthy aren't as important as they think they are.  They are parasites that have convinced stupid people they are vital organs.
Click to expand...


Only the severely mentally impaired believe that owners are earners.  We are not allowed to hear the heresy of Necessary But Not Valuable.  Without a key, we can't drive a $50,000 car.  But the key is worth only $5.


----------



## PrometheusBound

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you had to move to Germany's Doormat to succeed because you couldn't hack it here.
> 
> But, no, man, the Wealthy aren't as important as they think they are.  They are parasites that have convinced stupid people they are vital organs.
> 
> 
> 
> You live in Chicago ffs!
> 
> Unfortunately, parasites are people like you on the public dole who are too lazy or too incompetent to hold a job. The rich have to bail your sorry asses out in the name of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich have no humanity... that's the problem.
Click to expand...


More like Jabba the Hutt as Forbes Magazine's  Man of the Year every year.


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> Explains a lot that Blow job Joe gets his political point of views from B Sci-Fi movies.



That's because the fantasies the rich create about their value to society are so unrealistic that even Hollywood rejects those scripts.


----------



## thanatos144

PrometheusBound said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains a lot that Blow job Joe gets his political point of views from B Sci-Fi movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the fantasies the rich create about their value to society are so unrealistic that even Hollywood rejects those scripts.
Click to expand...


Which rich are we talking about? The ones who own businesses and employe people like your stupid ass or the Hollywood elite rich who do nothing but stroke their own perverted ego? You know the evil rich Hollywood portray as uncaring and ruthless is true.... It just happens to be them.


----------



## Toro

rich people > bigots

I think we can all agree on that.


----------



## Toro

PrometheusBound said:


> The rich parasites will siphon all their tax money back through increased economic activity created by government spending, idiot.



lol

hilarious


----------



## thanatos144

Toro said:


> rich people > bigots
> 
> I think we can all agree on that.



Really? I dont think so.... Democrat equal racist yes being rich doesn't.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Ah, yes...IRS jackboots ringing in the streets!  Forget the "law"...you're going to take the money whether it's by the rules or not, right Joe!  Gee, that will have investors *flocking* to the US to set up their businesses and hire Americans!  Oh wait...why wouldn't they just choose to invest their money outside of the US where it isn't taxed at a draconian rate?  Why would anyone be stupid enough to start up the next Microsoft, Apple or General Motors in a place where profits were seized by the Federal Government like it was some two bit Banana Republic?  You'd have to be a *moron* to not start up your business in a country that wouldn't be waiting around like vultures on a tree for any potential profits.



Except most other countries in the world that are worth living in already tax a "draconian" rate.  

We have the lowest taxes on the wealthy out there.  

Now, yeah, you could set up in a third world country of illiterate peasents.   Good luck producing a quality product there that anyone would want to buy. Because those third world peasents never revolt and just take all the shit the rich have, right? 

Oh, wait.


----------



## Oldstyle

You want us to emulate Cuba?  Before you make a total ass of yourself...I would suggest you visit Cuba and see for yourself what happens to a country when a bunch of zealots seize the assets of the wealthy.  It's not pretty.  The Cuban people live a miserable life and it's because their leaders decided that Capitalism was evil and they knew better.


----------



## Oldstyle

And for *some* of the wealthy in the US if you combine Federal, State and local taxes they are paying a rate of 55% which is the same as the rate in Belgium which has the highest individual tax rates in the world.  When ObamaCare kicks in that rate will only be going up.


----------



## Toro

Oldstyle said:


> And for *some* of the wealthy in the US if you combine Federal, State and local taxes they are paying a rate of 55% which is the same as the rate in Belgium which has the highest individual tax rates in the world.  When ObamaCare kicks in that rate will only be going up.



France has a marginal rate of 75%.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> You want us to emulate Cuba?  Before you make a total ass of yourself...I would suggest you visit Cuba and see for yourself what happens to a country when a bunch of zealots seize the assets of the wealthy.  It's not pretty.  The Cuban people live a miserable life and it's because their leaders decided that Capitalism was evil and they knew better.



No, I don't want us to emulate Cuba. 

I point out that Cuba is exactly what you radical plutocrat supporters think is a good thing.  

Before Castro, foreign corporations owned 75% of the arable land, there was no middle class and the people suffered pretty horribly.  In fact, a Great American said this about our policies in Cuba. 



*"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my countrys policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."*

 U.S. President John F. Kennedy,

Then the Cuban people had quite enough of that shit and did something about it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ah, yes...IRS jackboots ringing in the streets!  Forget the "law"...you're going to take the money whether it's by the rules or not, right Joe!  Gee, that will have investors *flocking* to the US to set up their businesses and hire Americans!  Oh wait...why wouldn't they just choose to invest their money outside of the US where it isn't taxed at a draconian rate?  Why would anyone be stupid enough to start up the next Microsoft, Apple or General Motors in a place where profits were seized by the Federal Government like it was some two bit Banana Republic?  You'd have to be a *moron* to not start up your business in a country that wouldn't be waiting around like vultures on a tree for any potential profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except most other countries in the world that are worth living in already tax a "draconian" rate.
> 
> We have the lowest taxes on the wealthy out there.
> 
> Now, yeah, you could set up in a third world country of illiterate peasents.   Good luck producing a quality product there that anyone would want to buy. Because those third world peasents never revolt and just take all the shit the rich have, right?
> 
> Oh, wait.
Click to expand...


Democrat run school system is doing a fine job of graduating whole generation of illiterate peasants. How do you think Obama won 2 elections?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to emulate Cuba?  Before you make a total ass of yourself...I would suggest you visit Cuba and see for yourself what happens to a country when a bunch of zealots seize the assets of the wealthy.  It's not pretty.  The Cuban people live a miserable life and it's because their leaders decided that Capitalism was evil and they knew better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want us to emulate Cuba.
> 
> I point out that Cuba is exactly what you radical plutocrat supporters think is a good thing.
> 
> Before Castro, foreign corporations owned 75% of the arable land, there was no middle class and the people suffered pretty horribly.  In fact, a Great American said this about our policies in Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> *"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my countrys policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."*
> 
>  U.S. President John F. Kennedy,
> 
> Then the Cuban people had quite enough of that shit and did something about it.
Click to expand...


And they're much much much worse off now

Well done, Che!

I don't see anyone floating on a fucking innertube to go from Miami TO Cuba


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> Democrat run school system is doing a fine job of graduating whole generation of illiterate peasants. How do you think Obama won 2 elections?



He won two elections because Bush brought them....

The Worst Recession in 80 years. 
Two Endless Wars
A major city being wiped off the map due to his incompetence


The very fact that most of the Republicans on this board denounce every Republican President who has served since Ike EXCEPT for their mythical version of Reagan shows that even you guys don't defend what you've done.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> And they're much much much worse off now
> 
> Well done, Che!
> 
> I don't see anyone floating on a fucking innertube to go from Miami TO Cuba



I always find it amusing that you think illegal aliens from Mexico who risk their lives to get here are the equivlent to terrorism, but the ones who sneak in from Cuba are "freedom fighters".


----------



## Meathead

Aside from all your other moronic ideas Joe, you imagine that treading 90 miles of open sea is "sneaking in" while crossing a 1000-mile border at night is risking one's life?!


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Aside from all your other moronic ideas Joe, you imagine that treading 90 miles of open sea is "sneaking in" while crossing a 1000-mile border at night is risking one's life?!



Um, yeah, actually, it is.  

Actually, probably just as dangerous to cross 90 miles of desert as it is 90 miles of ocean if you are unprepared. 

Of course, most mexican illegals hire Coyotes to sneak them across, and most Cubans hire professional smugglers as well.  

The only difference is, we welcome Cubans because we are still mad at Cuba for rejecting us.  

We are like the world's shittiest ex-girlfriend.  All that is missing is the Drunk dialing...






*"Castro, You Communist bastard! I hate you!"*


----------



## editec

> The very fact that most of the Republicans on this board denounce every Republican President who has served since Ike EXCEPT for their mythical version of Reagan shows that even you guys don't defend what you've done.


Some things are just worth repeating.

Today's self proclaiming uber Republicans would, if the past Republican POTUSs were in office, complain about them being too liberal.

EVEN REAGAN would have been too liberal for their current POV.

Now most of the people here who claim to be republicans simple don't know enough Republican history to know that.

they believe the MYTHS rather than the history of the Republican party and its heros.

For example..they believe that Reagan reduced the deficit, the national debt and the size of government.

they BELIEVE that and no amount of history, not even if it comes from the most conservative sources will make them change their minds.

Debating facts with FAITH BASED MORONS, like these,are largely a waste of time.


----------



## Toro

CrusaderFrank said:


> And they're much much much worse off now
> 
> Well done, Che!
> 
> I don't see anyone floating on a fucking innertube to go from Miami TO Cuba



An interesting comparison to Cuba is Chile, which had roughly the same standards of living in 1960.

Pinochet was a fucking bastard who committed human rights violations and should have stood trial for his crimes.  Having said that, Chile is a second-world country while Cuba still uses vehicles from the 1940s and nobody has cell phones.


----------



## Meathead

editec said:


> The very fact that most of the Republicans on this board denounce every Republican President who has served since Ike EXCEPT for their mythical version of Reagan shows that even you guys don't defend what you've done.
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are just worth repeating.
> 
> Today's self proclaiming uber Republicans would, if the past Republican POTUSs were in office, complain about them being too liberal.
> 
> EVEN REAGAN would have been too liberal for their current POV.
> 
> Now most of the people here who claim to be republicans simple don't know enough Republican history to know that.
> 
> they believe the MYTHS rather than the history of the Republican party and its heros.
> 
> For example..they believe that Reagan reduced the deficit, the national debt and the size of government.
> 
> they BELIEVE that and no amount of history, not even if it comes from the most conservative sources will make them change their minds.
> 
> Debating facts with FAITH BASED MORONS, like these,are largely a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Weird post. There is nothing remotely true from the quote or the comments.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to emulate Cuba?  Before you make a total ass of yourself...I would suggest you visit Cuba and see for yourself what happens to a country when a bunch of zealots seize the assets of the wealthy.  It's not pretty.  The Cuban people live a miserable life and it's because their leaders decided that Capitalism was evil and they knew better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want us to emulate Cuba.
> 
> I point out that Cuba is exactly what you radical plutocrat supporters think is a good thing.
> 
> Before Castro, foreign corporations owned 75% of the arable land, there was no middle class and the people suffered pretty horribly.  In fact, a Great American said this about our policies in Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> *"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my countrys policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."*
> 
>  U.S. President John F. Kennedy,
> 
> Then the Cuban people had quite enough of that shit and did something about it.
Click to expand...


And what happened then, Joe?  What happened when the Cuban people bought into the whole "Capitalism is evil" routine of Castro and Che and did away with free market systems and went with State run systems?  What's the standard of living NOW for the average Cuban?  What rights do they have?  You think it was shitty living in Cuba under Batista?  It's far worse under the Castro brothers!


----------



## Oldstyle

editec said:


> The very fact that most of the Republicans on this board denounce every Republican President who has served since Ike EXCEPT for their mythical version of Reagan shows that even you guys don't defend what you've done.
> 
> 
> 
> Some things are just worth repeating.
> 
> Today's self proclaiming uber Republicans would, if the past Republican POTUSs were in office, complain about them being too liberal.
> 
> EVEN REAGAN would have been too liberal for their current POV.
> 
> Now most of the people here who claim to be republicans simple don't know enough Republican history to know that.
> 
> they believe the MYTHS rather than the history of the Republican party and its heros.
> 
> For example..they believe that Reagan reduced the deficit, the national debt and the size of government.
> 
> they BELIEVE that and no amount of history, not even if it comes from the most conservative sources will make them change their minds.
> 
> Debating facts with FAITH BASED MORONS, like these,are largely a waste of time.
Click to expand...


Reagan's "record" is what it is, Ed!  Yes, he increased the national debt but he also brought America back from the awful Carter years and created more wealth than any other President we've ever had because of his belief that lowering taxes would stimulate growth.  Reagan cut taxes dramatically and lo and behold the revenues that the US was taking in only declined slightly while the economy boomed.

Oh, and Ed?  I'm an agnostic...so the whole "FAITH BASED MORONS" thing is SO missing the mark with me.  My facts aren't based on "FAITH"...they're based on what actually took place during Reagan's two terms.


----------



## PrometheusBound

thanatos144 said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explains a lot that Blow job Joe gets his political point of views from B Sci-Fi movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the fantasies the rich create about their value to society are so unrealistic that even Hollywood rejects those scripts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which rich are we talking about? The ones who own businesses and employe people like your stupid ass .
Click to expand...


Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.   That sucks!


----------



## PrometheusBound

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ah, yes...IRS jackboots ringing in the streets!  Forget the "law"...you're going to take the money whether it's by the rules or not, right Joe!  Gee, that will have investors *flocking* to the US to set up their businesses and hire Americans!  Oh wait...why wouldn't they just choose to invest their money outside of the US where it isn't taxed at a draconian rate?  Why would anyone be stupid enough to start up the next Microsoft, Apple or General Motors in a place where profits were seized by the Federal Government like it was some two bit Banana Republic?  You'd have to be a *moron* to not start up your business in a country that wouldn't be waiting around like vultures on a tree for any potential profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except most other countries in the world that are worth living in already tax a "draconian" rate.
> 
> We have the lowest taxes on the wealthy out there.
> 
> Now, yeah, you could set up in a third world country of illiterate peasents.   Good luck producing a quality product there that anyone would want to buy. Because those third world peasents never revolt and just take all the shit the rich have, right?
> 
> Oh, wait.
Click to expand...


Fidel came from one of the richest families in Cuba.   Abolish inheritance and we won't be saddled with false alternatives to Capitalism.

In a typical trick to suppress the truth, this class-warfare trick was revealed in the Robert Redford movie _Havana_, but put into the mouth of a brutal agent of Batista so you wouldn't believe it.


----------



## Oldstyle

PrometheusBound said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the fantasies the rich create about their value to society are so unrealistic that even Hollywood rejects those scripts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich are we talking about? The ones who own businesses and employe people like your stupid ass .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.   That sucks!
Click to expand...


That analogy makes almost no sense at all, Prometheus.  The fact is...it takes capital to create jobs.  Rich people HAVE capital!  Given the right incentives rich people will try to increase their holdings by investing in businesses that create jobs.  On the other hand...if you treat profit as a crime and create taxes to seize profits...then rich people won't risk capital in businesses and jobs won't be created.  I know this whole subject is "confusing" to you starry eyed progressives but it's really quite simple if you put some thought into it.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Oldstyle said:


> You want us to emulate Cuba?  Before you make a total ass of yourself...I would suggest you visit Cuba and see for yourself what happens to a country when a bunch of zealots seize the assets of the wealthy.  It's not pretty.  The Cuban people live a miserable life and it's because their leaders decided that Capitalism was evil and they knew better.



The Commies were the wealthy, sucker.  The boogeyman your Masters tell you to hate were heirs to the fortunes milked by Capitalism.  Typical of spoiled-rotten scum, they were impatient with waiting for Daddy to die so they could inherit.   That's why they took control of the democratic revolution and imposed an Heirhead dictatorship on their gullible guerrillas.   Their governance was also incompetent because the unfit spawn of your rich heroes never had to compete.   The conceit your fatcats bred into them made them sure they were naturally endowed with the ability to run things and didn't have to learn how to get things done.  

The Jabba the Hutt plutocratic parasites you want us to worship are the very ones who beget the Limousine Left you want us to hate.


----------



## Oldstyle

PrometheusBound said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to emulate Cuba?  Before you make a total ass of yourself...I would suggest you visit Cuba and see for yourself what happens to a country when a bunch of zealots seize the assets of the wealthy.  It's not pretty.  The Cuban people live a miserable life and it's because their leaders decided that Capitalism was evil and they knew better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commies were the wealthy, sucker.  The boogeyman your Masters tell you to hate were heirs to the fortunes milked by Capitalism.  Typical of spoiled-rotten scum, they were impatient with waiting for Daddy to die so they could inherit.   That's why they took control of the democratic revolution and imposed an Heirhead dictatorship on their gullible guerrillas.   Their governance was also incompetent because the unfit spawn of your rich heroes never had to compete.   The conceit your fatcats bred into them made them sure they were naturally endowed with the ability to run things and didn't have to learn how to get things done.
> 
> The Jabba the Hutt plutocratic parasites you want us to worship are the very ones who beget the Limousine Left you want us to hate.
Click to expand...


LOL...you don't have a *clue* what you're talking about...do you?


----------



## PrometheusBound

Oldstyle said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which rich are we talking about? The ones who own businesses and employe people like your stupid ass .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.   That sucks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That analogy makes almost no sense at all, Prometheus.  The fact is...it takes capital to create jobs.  Rich people HAVE capital!  Given the right incentives rich people will try to increase their holdings by investing in businesses that create jobs.  On the other hand...if you treat profit as a crime and create taxes to seize profits...then rich people won't risk capital in businesses and jobs won't be created.  I know this whole subject is "confusing" to you starry eyed progressives but it's really quite simple if you put some thought into it.
Click to expand...


I'd rather step on their toes than lick their boots.   There's no such thing as creating a job.   It's not a statue that you can look at; it's an activity, so the employee makes it into something useful.   Again, the Capitalist is like a car key--necessary but not valued at more than $5 on a $50,000 car, which is the work force.   The predatory plutocratic parasites suck our blood by paying us far less than what we produce after they click on the ignition.  

The Middle Ages had plenty of capital but were unproductive, because all capital does is suck blood.   Capitalism is just a branch grafted on to the feudalist tree used for lynching peasants.


----------



## Oldstyle

Cuba under Castro failed because it was run by the children of rich people?  The system they chose had nothing to do with that failure of course...right?

What Poly-Sci professor saddled you with THAT nonsense, Prom...seriously Dude...


----------



## PrometheusBound

Oldstyle said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to emulate Cuba?  Before you make a total ass of yourself...I would suggest you visit Cuba and see for yourself what happens to a country when a bunch of zealots seize the assets of the wealthy.  It's not pretty.  The Cuban people live a miserable life and it's because their leaders decided that Capitalism was evil and they knew better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commies were the wealthy, sucker.  The boogeyman your Masters tell you to hate were heirs to the fortunes milked by Capitalism.  Typical of spoiled-rotten scum, they were impatient with waiting for Daddy to die so they could inherit.   That's why they took control of the democratic revolution and imposed an Heirhead dictatorship on their gullible guerrillas.   Their governance was also incompetent because the unfit spawn of your rich heroes never had to compete.   The conceit your fatcats bred into them made them sure they were naturally endowed with the ability to run things and didn't have to learn how to get things done.
> 
> The Jabba the Hutt plutocratic parasites you want us to worship are the very ones who beget the Limousine Left you want us to hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...you don't have a *clue* what you're talking about...do you?
Click to expand...


You don't have a firm grasp of what _clue_ means or you wouldn't use it that way.   That is a bimbo Heiresshead Valley Girl expression, so I'll pay as much attention to you as I would to Kim Kardashian.


----------



## Oldstyle

PrometheusBound said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.   That sucks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy makes almost no sense at all, Prometheus.  The fact is...it takes capital to create jobs.  Rich people HAVE capital!  Given the right incentives rich people will try to increase their holdings by investing in businesses that create jobs.  On the other hand...if you treat profit as a crime and create taxes to seize profits...then rich people won't risk capital in businesses and jobs won't be created.  I know this whole subject is "confusing" to you starry eyed progressives but it's really quite simple if you put some thought into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather step on their toes than lick their boots.   There's no such thing as creating a job.   It's not a statue that you can look at; it's an activity, so the employee makes it into something useful.   Again, the Capitalist is like a car key--necessary but not valued at more than $5 on a $50,000 car, which is the work force.   The predatory plutocratic parasites suck our blood by paying us far less than what we produce after they click on the ignition.
> 
> The Middle Ages had plenty of capital but were unproductive, because all capital does is suck blood.   Capitalism is just a branch grafted on to the feudalist tree used for lynching peasants.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as creating a job?  Really!  So the businesses that I've started over the years didn't create jobs for all the people who worked for me?  Those jobs just spontaneously appeared?  Is that what you're saying?

"Predatory plutocratic parasites"?  LOL...ah, you've got to love someone with a lot of education and absolutely no clue how to employ it!


----------



## Oldstyle

PrometheusBound said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commies were the wealthy, sucker.  The boogeyman your Masters tell you to hate were heirs to the fortunes milked by Capitalism.  Typical of spoiled-rotten scum, they were impatient with waiting for Daddy to die so they could inherit.   That's why they took control of the democratic revolution and imposed an Heirhead dictatorship on their gullible guerrillas.   Their governance was also incompetent because the unfit spawn of your rich heroes never had to compete.   The conceit your fatcats bred into them made them sure they were naturally endowed with the ability to run things and didn't have to learn how to get things done.
> 
> The Jabba the Hutt plutocratic parasites you want us to worship are the very ones who beget the Limousine Left you want us to hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...you don't have a *clue* what you're talking about...do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a firm grasp of what _clue_ means or you wouldn't use it that way.   That is a bimbo Heiresshead Valley Girl expression, so I'll pay as much attention to you as I would to Kim Kardashian.
Click to expand...


Since I'm from Massachusetts...about as far from the "Valley" as you can get, both literally and figuratively, your contention makes as much sense as the rest of your verbal diarrhea.


----------



## Oldstyle

PrometheusBound said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.   That sucks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That analogy makes almost no sense at all, Prometheus.  The fact is...it takes capital to create jobs.  Rich people HAVE capital!  Given the right incentives rich people will try to increase their holdings by investing in businesses that create jobs.  On the other hand...if you treat profit as a crime and create taxes to seize profits...then rich people won't risk capital in businesses and jobs won't be created.  I know this whole subject is "confusing" to you starry eyed progressives but it's really quite simple if you put some thought into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd rather step on their toes than lick their boots.   There's no such thing as creating a job.   It's not a statue that you can look at; it's an activity, so the employee makes it into something useful.   Again, the Capitalist is like a car key--necessary but not valued at more than $5 on a $50,000 car, which is the work force.   The predatory plutocratic parasites suck our blood by paying us far less than what we produce after they click on the ignition.
> 
> The Middle Ages had plenty of capital but were unproductive, because all capital does is suck blood.   Capitalism is just a branch grafted on to the feudalist tree used for lynching peasants.
Click to expand...


The layers of stupidity in this post are staggering, Prom.

So let me see if I understand how this SHOULD work in your confused mind...

The "predatory plutocratic parasites" (otherwise known as business owners) should pay you MORE than you produce?  That makes sense to you?  Really?  Wow, you are either really stoned this morning or you are about as clueless AS a Kardashian.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Oldstyle said:


> Cuba under Castro failed because it was run by the children of rich people?  The system they chose had nothing to do with that failure of course...right?
> 
> What Poly-Sci professor saddled you with THAT nonsense, Prom...seriously Dude...



You think any idea you don't want to hear must come from Academentia?   The university is an obsolete aristocratic institution designed specifically for spoiled-rotten garbage living off an allowance, so you'll never get ideas like mine from that Snob Mob source.   Modern ideologies represent only a pillow fight at a prep school, from which real Americans are excluded.  But Brown-noses don't want to hear anything bad about Bluebloods, except when the preppy progressives pretend to be against your Heirhead idols, who are their fraternity brothers.  They both are joined together pulling a frat-rat prank on you mice.


----------



## Oldstyle

PrometheusBound said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba under Castro failed because it was run by the children of rich people?  The system they chose had nothing to do with that failure of course...right?
> 
> What Poly-Sci professor saddled you with THAT nonsense, Prom...seriously Dude...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think any idea you don't want to hear must come from Academentia?   The university is an obsolete aristocratic institution designed specifically for spoiled-rotten garbage living off an allowance, so you'll never get ideas like mine from that Snob Mob source.   Modern ideologies represent only a pillow fight at a prep school, from which real Americans are excluded.  But Brown-noses don't want to hear anything bad about Bluebloods, except when the preppy progressives pretend to be against your Heirhead idols, who are their fraternity brothers.  They both are joined together pulling a frat-rat prank on you mice.
Click to expand...


Ah...right...NOW I'm starting to get a feel for where you're coming from...

You WERE in college but flunked out?  Gee, Prom...didn't they understand the "brilliance" of your analogies?  

I'm curious...at some point in your life did someone tell you that you were an astute observer of the human condition and if so...did you actually believe them?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You progressives  are just going to have to deal with the fact that  Ronald Reagan hurt your cause to destroy the United States of America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
Click to expand...


No, the reason why Reagan is hated is because he destroyed the middle class. 
__________________


yep.yep,and yep.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I remember the years before Reagan, when we had a vibrant middle class, guys like my dad who were in the union could own their own homes and vacation property and take trips with the family, and lived a pretty comfortable life.
> 
> Now I know folks like myself who have college educations, but are still working two and three jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> The rich got richer and the rest of got screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, I lived through the 1980's.  They weren't that impressive. It started with a recession and ended with a recession.
> 
> Fact was, Unemployment was as bad at the end of Reagan's first term as it was when he took office.
Click to expand...




thats what I have said to the reagan zombies over a hundred times on this thread.

the thing that proves you correct is actual broadcasts from the 1980's back then that I posted here on post # 568 which predictably,they covered their ears and closed their eyes on in.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-38.html

myself and friends even spelled it out for them dummies style here on post # 576

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-39.html

only to watch out facts go ignored.

these reagan zombies would be laughed out of debating hall within a minute refusing to address their opponents facts like they do.good thing they arent lawyers,nobody would want them to represent them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol how droll do you not know anything but what is spoon fed you why you for ever going to be ignorant but actually happened but you're young still and too f****** stupid to realize what the 80's actually were  like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not too young to remember, lad.
> 
> Reagan's contribution to the mess we're in now is obvious.
> 
> Doubt me?
> 
> Do your own reseach into the size of government, the size of the deficit and the sixe of the national debt.
> 
> Everything the right wing mytholgy yells us about Reagan  is a big fat lie.
> 
> the datas are there so there's NO excuse for being fooled other than you WANT to be fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is the problem.
> 
> The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for.
> 
> But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.
> 
> And thus a legend is born.
Click to expand...


Like you said before,the berlin wall did not come down till 3 years later after he was out of office and somehow reagan gets the credit for that. the dates are there for sure and so are tapes of actual broadcasts from the 80 of MAINSTREAM MEDIA announcers I have posted announcing that reagans policys betrayed the middle class.actual live broadcasts back then. it


----------



## LA RAM FAN

regent said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not too young to remember, lad.
> 
> Reagan's contribution to the mess we're in now is obvious.
> 
> Doubt me?
> 
> Do your own reseach into the size of government, the size of the deficit and the sixe of the national debt.
> 
> Everything the right wing mytholgy yells us about Reagan  is a big fat lie.
> 
> the datas are there so there's NO excuse for being fooled other than you WANT to be fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the problem.
> 
> The REAL Reagan tripled the debt, raised taxes after cutting them, dramatically increased government spending, appointed moderates to the courts, gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, and did dozens of other things that Republicans would never forgive a Bush for.
> 
> But he gave a really pretty speech in Berlin and a few years later, the wall came down.
> 
> And thus a legend is born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The beauty of Reagan is he could do all the things above and yet convince people he did just the opposite. Why is that? Was it his acting ability, his little grin, did he believe his own words, or did people want to believe, just what?
> Was his whole presidency one giant acting role and even he and the audience didn't know it? If so it deserves an academy award, it still today gets  good revues today.
> Did he in fact, not remember 124 times when questioned by the Iran-Contra Congressional committee? But his best scene was the tear down the wall take.
Click to expand...


and support and aid contra terrorists as well yet people still love him today.they were taken in by the actor who acted and fooled many people here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tip O'Neill didn't come out on day one and say, "I hope he Fails".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That could be  because unlike Obama, Reagan's plan was not to destroy the United States of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Quadrupling the National Debt, shipping all the good paying jobs to Asia, (The Japanese paid him a 1 Million dollar speaking fee after he left office) busting up the Middle Class.
> 
> Looks like he pretty much destroyed America to me.
Click to expand...


thats cause you arent in denial.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

You can tell how deluded people are about Reagan when they try to convince themselves that the Berlin Wall just fell on its own or that Reagan "raised taxes"


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> And what happened then, Joe?  What happened when the Cuban people bought into the whole "Capitalism is evil" routine of Castro and Che and did away with free market systems and went with State run systems?  What's the standard of living NOW for the average Cuban?  What rights do they have?  You think it was shitty living in Cuba under Batista?  It's far worse under the Castro brothers!



Most Cubans would probably disagree with you.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that long after they are dead, the Castro brothers and Che will be remembered as heroes even after Cubans figure out Communism doesn't really work. 

This is what a lot of you foaming at the mouth right-wingers don't get.  

Vietnamese folks have embraced capitalism and reconciled with the free world.  They STILL revere Ho Chi Mihn the way we revere Geo. Washington.  

Stalin was recently voted the third greatest figure in Russian history. (After _SAINT_ Alexander Nevsky and the Prime Minister who freed the Serfs.) 

Second point- Yes, living in Cuba sucks, because we've been spending the last 50 years punishing Cuba economically with sanctions.  And shame on us for doing so, and shame on us for letting the bitter exile community have so much power.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And what happened then, Joe?  What happened when the Cuban people bought into the whole "Capitalism is evil" routine of Castro and Che and did away with free market systems and went with State run systems?  What's the standard of living NOW for the average Cuban?  What rights do they have?  You think it was shitty living in Cuba under Batista?  It's far worse under the Castro brothers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Cubans would probably disagree with you.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that long after they are dead, the Castro brothers and Che will be remembered as heroes even after Cubans figure out Communism doesn't really work.
> 
> This is what a lot of you foaming at the mouth right-wingers don't get.
> 
> Vietnamese folks have embraced capitalism and reconciled with the free world.  They STILL revere Ho Chi Mihn the way we revere Geo. Washington.
> 
> Stalin was recently voted the third greatest figure in Russian history. (After _SAINT_ Alexander Nevsky and the Prime Minister who freed the Serfs.)
> 
> Second point- Yes, living in Cuba sucks, because we've been spending the last 50 years punishing Cuba economically with sanctions.  And shame on us for doing so, and shame on us for letting the bitter exile community have so much power.
Click to expand...


You don't really know very much about Cuba...do you, Joe?  Let me clue you in...

When most Cubans speak of Castro they don't actually say his name...instead they stroke their chins (because Castro is referred to as "The Beard" by Cubanos).  They do this because making comments about Fidel even to your neighbors can land a Cuban in prison.

At some point Cuba *will* emerge from the shadow of Communism.  When that happens and the Cuban people are able to prosper for the first time in decades, Fidel Castro will be seen for what he was...a brutal dictator.

Che died back in the 60's, Dude...didn't you get the memo on that?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> You don't really know very much about Cuba...do you, Joe?  Let me clue you in...
> 
> When most Cubans speak of Castro they don't actually say his name...instead they stroke their chins (because Castro is referred to as "The Beard" by Cubanos).  They do this because making comments about Fidel even to your neighbors can land a Cuban in prison.
> 
> At some point Cuba *will* emerge from the shadow of Communism.  When that happens and the Cuban people are able to prosper for the first time in decades, Fidel Castro will be seen for what he was...a brutal dictator.
> 
> Che died back in the 60's, Dude...didn't you get the memo on that?



Guy, you need to get a memo.  The assholes in Florida we made the mistake of letting in are not an accurate source.  Half of them were thrown out of Cuban mental hospitals and prisons.  

We need to stop letting THIS GUY dictate our Cuba policy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And what happened then, Joe?  What happened when the Cuban people bought into the whole "Capitalism is evil" routine of Castro and Che and did away with free market systems and went with State run systems?  What's the standard of living NOW for the average Cuban?  What rights do they have?  You think it was shitty living in Cuba under Batista?  It's far worse under the Castro brothers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Cubans would probably disagree with you.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that long after they are dead, the Castro brothers and Che will be remembered as heroes even after Cubans figure out Communism doesn't really work.
> 
> This is what a lot of you foaming at the mouth right-wingers don't get.
> 
> Vietnamese folks have embraced capitalism and reconciled with the free world.  They STILL revere Ho Chi Mihn the way we revere Geo. Washington.
> 
> Stalin was recently voted the third greatest figure in Russian history. (After _SAINT_ Alexander Nevsky and the Prime Minister who freed the Serfs.)
> 
> Second point- Yes, living in Cuba sucks, because we've been spending the last 50 years punishing Cuba economically with sanctions.  And shame on us for doing so, and shame on us for letting the bitter exile community have so much power.
Click to expand...


Joe the little schoolboy Communist, he believes the American Liberal version of Communism and never met and never talked with anyone who fled these various Workers Paradise for the USA.

I never met anyone from Cuba or the former USSR who speaks fondly of the world they left behind. My favorite comment was from a Russian émigré who left a week after the wall came down and is now a wealthy landlord here. To him the Joes of the world are the dumbest people on the planet pining openly for the worst political/ economic system.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You don't really know very much about Cuba...do you, Joe?  Let me clue you in...
> 
> When most Cubans speak of Castro they don't actually say his name...instead they stroke their chins (because Castro is referred to as "The Beard" by Cubanos).  They do this because making comments about Fidel even to your neighbors can land a Cuban in prison.
> 
> At some point Cuba *will* emerge from the shadow of Communism.  When that happens and the Cuban people are able to prosper for the first time in decades, Fidel Castro will be seen for what he was...a brutal dictator.
> 
> Che died back in the 60's, Dude...didn't you get the memo on that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you need to get a memo.  The assholes in Florida we made the mistake of letting in are not an accurate source.  Half of them were thrown out of Cuban mental hospitals and prisons.
> 
> We need to stop letting THIS GUY dictate our Cuba policy.
Click to expand...


Ive been active in affordable housing in Little Havana for over 20 years and I never met anyone like Scarface and again the Cuban landlords and tenants will tell you to your face that you're a liar and not too bright either


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And what happened then, Joe?  What happened when the Cuban people bought into the whole "Capitalism is evil" routine of Castro and Che and did away with free market systems and went with State run systems?  What's the standard of living NOW for the average Cuban?  What rights do they have?  You think it was shitty living in Cuba under Batista?  It's far worse under the Castro brothers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Cubans would probably disagree with you.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that long after they are dead, the Castro brothers and Che will be remembered as heroes even after Cubans figure out Communism doesn't really work.
> 
> This is what a lot of you foaming at the mouth right-wingers don't get.
> 
> Vietnamese folks have embraced capitalism and reconciled with the free world.  They STILL revere Ho Chi Mihn the way we revere Geo. Washington.
> 
> Stalin was recently voted the third greatest figure in Russian history. (After _SAINT_ Alexander Nevsky and the Prime Minister who freed the Serfs.)
> 
> Second point- Yes, living in Cuba sucks, because we've been spending the last 50 years punishing Cuba economically with sanctions.  And shame on us for doing so, and shame on us for letting the bitter exile community have so much power.
Click to expand...


Put another way, the same people who put FDR on top of US Presidents list Stalin third


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You don't really know very much about Cuba...do you, Joe?  Let me clue you in...
> 
> When most Cubans speak of Castro they don't actually say his name...instead they stroke their chins (because Castro is referred to as "The Beard" by Cubanos).  They do this because making comments about Fidel even to your neighbors can land a Cuban in prison.
> 
> At some point Cuba *will* emerge from the shadow of Communism.  When that happens and the Cuban people are able to prosper for the first time in decades, Fidel Castro will be seen for what he was...a brutal dictator.
> 
> Che died back in the 60's, Dude...didn't you get the memo on that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you need to get a memo.  The assholes in Florida we made the mistake of letting in are not an accurate source.  Half of them were thrown out of Cuban mental hospitals and prisons.
> 
> We need to stop letting THIS GUY dictate our Cuba policy.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you're basing your knowledge of Cuba on "Scarface"?  That explains a lot...


----------



## Oldstyle

I'm speaking about the Cuba that I know from visiting the country...you're speaking about the Cuba that you "know" from watching a movie that was a remake of an earlier American movie.  Gee, I wonder who knows more about the REAL Cuba!


----------



## Camp

American policy in regards to Cuba has always sucked. It sucked before Castro and it sucks today.


----------



## thanatos144

Camp said:


> American policy in regards to Cuba has always sucked. It sucked before Castro and it sucks today.



Yes we know you hate it that the big bad America doesn't kiss the ass of a communist fascist regime.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB, when are you going to get in a tire inner tube and float to Cuba?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> Joe the little schoolboy Communist, he believes the American Liberal version of Communism and never met and never talked with anyone who fled these various Workers Paradise for the USA.
> 
> I never met anyone from Cuba or the former USSR who speaks fondly of the world they left behind. My favorite comment was from a Russian émigré who left a week after the wall came down and is now a wealthy landlord here. To him the Joes of the world are the dumbest people on the planet pining openly for the worst political/ economic system.



Guy, somehow I doubt you spend any time talking to anyone outside these boards.  

Of course people who leave a country aren't going to say fond things about it.  Do you realize what a big step leaving the country of your birth actually is?  

Fact is, most Cubans are still in Cuba.  Most Russians stayed in the USSR.  

Incidently, I did work with a guy who used to live in the Ukranian SSR, and he had found memories of Communism.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Joe the little schoolboy Communist, he believes the American Liberal version of Communism and never met and never talked with anyone who fled these various Workers Paradise for the USA.
> 
> I never met anyone from Cuba or the former USSR who speaks fondly of the world they left behind. My favorite comment was from a Russian émigré who left a week after the wall came down and is now a wealthy landlord here. To him the Joes of the world are the dumbest people on the planet pining openly for the worst political/ economic system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, somehow I doubt you spend any time talking to anyone outside these boards.
> 
> Of course people who leave a country aren't going to say fond things about it.  Do you realize what a big step leaving the country of your birth actually is?
> 
> Fact is, most Cubans are still in Cuba.  Most Russians stayed in the USSR.
> 
> Incidently, I did work with a guy who used to live in the Ukranian SSR, and he had found memories of Communism.
Click to expand...


Ah, Joe?  Most Cubans are still in Cuba because the people running Cuba don't give them choice to leave.

See here's the thing...when a system really IS great?  You don't have to build "Iron Curtains" to keep the people there.  If Cuba was *great* people wouldn't risk their lives on leaky boats traversing shark infested waters to try and get out.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Ah, Joe?  Most Cubans are still in Cuba because the people running Cuba don't give them choice to leave.
> 
> See here's the thing...when a system really IS great?  You don't have to build "Iron Curtains" to keep the people there.  If Cuba was *great* people wouldn't risk their lives on leaky boats traversing shark infested waters to try and get out.



Okay, guy, the "Iron Curtain" was a metaphor.  There was no actual physical "Iron Curtain". 

I know this is hard for you to grasp, but there it is.  

Again, people risk their lives to get here from Cuba for the same reason they risk their lives to get here from Mexico. 

Yet no one would say that the 20 million who've escaped from Mexico is a condemnation of Capitalism.  But 1 million Cubans absolutely PROVES that Communism sucks (for the folks who were helping big corporations rape the country and were no longer welcome by their neighbors.) 

Am I saying Cuba is wonderful.  Nope. Communism really doesn't work well.  And the fact is, for the last 50 years, we've made it impossible for ANYONE to do business in Cuba.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Joe the little schoolboy Communist, he believes the American Liberal version of Communism and never met and never talked with anyone who fled these various Workers Paradise for the USA.
> 
> I never met anyone from Cuba or the former USSR who speaks fondly of the world they left behind. My favorite comment was from a Russian émigré who left a week after the wall came down and is now a wealthy landlord here. To him the Joes of the world are the dumbest people on the planet pining openly for the worst political/ economic system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, somehow I doubt you spend any time talking to anyone outside these boards.
> 
> Of course people who leave a country aren't going to say fond things about it.  Do you realize what a big step leaving the country of your birth actually is?
> 
> Fact is, most Cubans are still in Cuba.  Most Russians stayed in the USSR.
> 
> Incidently, I did work with a guy who used to live in the Ukranian SSR, and he had found memories of Communism.
Click to expand...


Fond memories of bread lines and poverty? Can other people see your friend or are you the only one who can see him and talk to him?

Tell us again what turned you away from being a Republican


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ah, Joe?  Most Cubans are still in Cuba because the people running Cuba don't give them choice to leave.
> 
> See here's the thing...when a system really IS great?  You don't have to build "Iron Curtains" to keep the people there.  If Cuba was *great* people wouldn't risk their lives on leaky boats traversing shark infested waters to try and get out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, the "Iron Curtain" was a metaphor.  There was no actual physical "Iron Curtain".
> 
> I know this is hard for you to grasp, but there it is.
> 
> Again, people risk their lives to get here from Cuba for the same reason they risk their lives to get here from Mexico.
> 
> Yet no one would say that the 20 million who've escaped from Mexico is a condemnation of Capitalism.  But 1 million Cubans absolutely PROVES that Communism sucks (for the folks who were helping big corporations rape the country and were no longer welcome by their neighbors.)
> 
> Am I saying Cuba is wonderful.  Nope. Communism really doesn't work well.  And the fact is, for the last 50 years, we've made it impossible for ANYONE to do business in Cuba.
Click to expand...


There was no Iron Curtain? Not literally, but you'd have to be a total Progressive fool to talk like that.


Yes, I still get goosebumps at "...open this gate"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Russian engineer in NJ 1989, in tears at his first visit to an A&P. A grown man crying openly. Why? He said JoeB's imaginary friends lied to him his whole life, they told him there was nothing like the prosperity and choices the American middle class enjoyed, it was all a lie all propaganda. And there, right in front of him was more fresh food than he'd ever seen in his entire life. Because it was run by free enterprise and not by the government


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Russian engineer in NJ 1989, in tears at his first visit to an A&P. A grown man crying openly. Why? He said JoeB's imaginary friends lied to him his whole life, they told him there was nothing like the prosperity and choices the American middle class enjoyed, it was all a lie all propaganda. And there, right in front of him was more fresh food than he'd ever seen in his entire life. *Because it was run by free enterprise and not by the government*



And it's very nice and stuff. 

But here's the thing.  The reason why we have so much fresh food is because the government subsidizes farming.   

Latest breaking news on US farm bill 2013 - breakingnews.com



> The US Senate advanced a a *$955 billion five-year farm bill in June 2013.* The bill would cut $24 billion from current spending levels over 10 years, including $4 billion-worth of cuts in food stamps.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hopes that House leaders will allow a floor vote on the Senate farm bill this year



Hey, if you are throwing nearly a TRILLION dollars at farmers over a five year period, that's not a "Free Market", dude.    

Wow, you really are a stupid person, aren't you?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> Fond memories of bread lines and poverty? Can other people see your friend or are you the only one who can see him and talk to him?
> 
> Tell us again what turned you away from being a Republican



When my scumwad, backstabbing, Romney-loving boss stabbed me in the back, and showed me who was on my side and who wasn't.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian engineer in NJ 1989, in tears at his first visit to an A&P. A grown man crying openly. Why? He said JoeB's imaginary friends lied to him his whole life, they told him there was nothing like the prosperity and choices the American middle class enjoyed, it was all a lie all propaganda. And there, right in front of him was more fresh food than he'd ever seen in his entire life. *Because it was run by free enterprise and not by the government*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's very nice and stuff.
> 
> But here's the thing.  The reason why we have so much fresh food is because the government subsidizes farming.
> 
> Latest breaking news on US farm bill 2013 - breakingnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Senate advanced a a *$955 billion five-year farm bill in June 2013.* The bill would cut $24 billion from current spending levels over 10 years, including $4 billion-worth of cuts in food stamps.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hopes that House leaders will allow a floor vote on the Senate farm bill this year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you are throwing nearly a TRILLION dollars at farmers over a five year period, that's not a "Free Market", dude.
> 
> Wow, you really are a stupid person, aren't you?
Click to expand...


The person that's rather ignorant is yourself, Joe...you think Obama wants the Farm Bill passed to help farmers, when it's the Food Stamp program that is a major part of the Farm Bill that Barry wants propped up.  Barack Obama could care less about America's farmers.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ah, Joe?  Most Cubans are still in Cuba because the people running Cuba don't give them choice to leave.
> 
> See here's the thing...when a system really IS great?  You don't have to build "Iron Curtains" to keep the people there.  If Cuba was *great* people wouldn't risk their lives on leaky boats traversing shark infested waters to try and get out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, the "Iron Curtain" was a metaphor.  There was no actual physical "Iron Curtain".
> 
> I know this is hard for you to grasp, but there it is.
> 
> Again, people risk their lives to get here from Cuba for the same reason they risk their lives to get here from Mexico.
> 
> Yet no one would say that the 20 million who've escaped from Mexico is a condemnation of Capitalism.  But 1 million Cubans absolutely PROVES that Communism sucks (for the folks who were helping big corporations rape the country and were no longer welcome by their neighbors.)
> 
> Am I saying Cuba is wonderful.  Nope. Communism really doesn't work well.  And the fact is, for the last 50 years, we've made it impossible for ANYONE to do business in Cuba.
Click to expand...


Wow...do you not understand what the Berlin Wall was, Joe?  It was a barrier constructed to keep people under Soviet domination from leaving for the West.  It was very much a "physical" Iron Curtain.  It consisted of concrete walls, barbed wire and guards with rifles shooting anyone trying to cross.  That isn't a "metaphor"!  People aren't killed by a metaphor.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> The person that's rather ignorant is yourself, Joe...you think Obama wants the Farm Bill passed to help farmers, when it's the Food Stamp program that is a major part of the Farm Bill that Barry wants propped up.  Barack Obama could care less about America's farmers.



Hey, DogStyle, 

Food Stamps have always been a part of the Agriculture Bills, not just starting with Obama. 

The purpose is to create demand to keep prices up.   

Hense, the reason why we don't have "bread lines" today like we did in the 1930's is because there's enough demand to make growing food profitable.  

The government also provides CROP INSURANCE to farmers.  IN short, if you are farmer and you have a drought or a vermin infestation that wipes out your crop, you don't go out of business.    Bunch of fucking socialists.  


The Senate is voting on a $955 billion farm bill. Here?s what?s in it.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Wow...do you not understand what the Berlin Wall was, Joe?  It was a barrier constructed to keep people under Soviet domination from leaving for the West.  It was very much a "physical" Iron Curtain.  It consisted of concrete walls, barbed wire and guards with rifles shooting anyone trying to cross.  That isn't a "metaphor"!  People aren't killed by a metaphor.



You do realize the "Berlin Wall" was deep inside the middle of East Germany, right?  

Hey, but you guys should be happy.  Communism had an epic fail 20 whole years before Capitalism did.   

Maybe it's time to look for something better?


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian engineer in NJ 1989, in tears at his first visit to an A&P. A grown man crying openly. Why? He said JoeB's imaginary friends lied to him his whole life, they told him there was nothing like the prosperity and choices the American middle class enjoyed, it was all a lie all propaganda. And there, right in front of him was more fresh food than he'd ever seen in his entire life. *Because it was run by free enterprise and not by the government*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's very nice and stuff.
> 
> But here's the thing.  The reason why we have so much fresh food is because the government subsidizes farming.
> 
> Latest breaking news on US farm bill 2013 - breakingnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Senate advanced a a *$955 billion five-year farm bill in June 2013.* The bill would cut $24 billion from current spending levels over 10 years, including $4 billion-worth of cuts in food stamps.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hopes that House leaders will allow a floor vote on the Senate farm bill this year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you are throwing nearly a TRILLION dollars at farmers over a five year period, that's not a "Free Market", dude.
> 
> Wow, you really are a stupid person, aren't you?
Click to expand...


OUCH Frank!!! 

as to the OP, Raygun was good at tough guy talk


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I





JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian engineer in NJ 1989, in tears at his first visit to an A&P. A grown man crying openly. Why? He said JoeB's imaginary friends lied to him his whole life, they told him there was nothing like the prosperity and choices the American middle class enjoyed, it was all a lie all propaganda. And there, right in front of him was more fresh food than he'd ever seen in his entire life. *Because it was run by free enterprise and not by the government*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's very nice and stuff.
> 
> But here's the thing.  The reason why we have so much fresh food is because the government subsidizes farming.
> 
> Latest breaking news on US farm bill 2013 - breakingnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Senate advanced a a *$955 billion five-year farm bill in June 2013.* The bill would cut $24 billion from current spending levels over 10 years, including $4 billion-worth of cuts in food stamps.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hopes that House leaders will allow a floor vote on the Senate farm bill this year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you are throwing nearly a TRILLION dollars at farmers over a five year period, that's not a "Free Market", dude.
> 
> Wow, you really are a stupid person, aren't you?
Click to expand...


We were founded as a nation of farmers. All the government subsidies did was make it impossible for the family farmer. We have few farmers because we have so many subsidies


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> I[
> 
> We were founded as a nation of farmers. All the government subsidies did was make it impossible for the family farmer. We have few farmers because we have so many subsidies



No, you see what happened was that mechanization and irrigation and improved genetics and treating farming as a SCIENCE meant that you didn't need 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.  You could do it just as effectively with 3%.  

A family farm works well if it's small.  But it won't feed that many people.  

The point you miss is that we have agriculture that feeds a hell of a lot of people because we treat it like a national resource that is subsidized and supported by government, from everything to vast irrigation projects to rural electrification to price supports.    

In short, the exact oppossite of what you Ayn Randian wingnuts propose.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wow...do you not understand what the Berlin Wall was, Joe?  It was a barrier constructed to keep people under Soviet domination from leaving for the West.  It was very much a "physical" Iron Curtain.  It consisted of concrete walls, barbed wire and guards with rifles shooting anyone trying to cross.  That isn't a "metaphor"!  People aren't killed by a metaphor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize the "Berlin Wall" was deep inside the middle of East Germany, right?
> 
> Hey, but you guys should be happy.  Communism had an epic fail 20 whole years before Capitalism did.
> 
> Maybe it's time to look for something better?
Click to expand...


I'm a European History major, Joe...I know quite a bit about the Berlin Wall.  I know for instance that the Soviet bloc nations secured their borders with fences, mine fields, dogs, machine guns and guards.  They typically had a depopulated zone on the eastern side of the border...something that wasn't possible with Berlin which is why they were forced to build the Berlin Wall.  I know that the border guards were only allowed to be married men with families to keep them from crossing the border themselves.  I know that over 3 million East Germans fled the East for West Germany before the communists built the Iron Curtain to keep them from leaving.  You obviously don't know much about Germany following WWII.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I[
> 
> We were founded as a nation of farmers. All the government subsidies did was make it impossible for the family farmer. We have few farmers because we have so many subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see what happened was that mechanization and irrigation and improved genetics and treating farming as a SCIENCE meant that you didn't need 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.  You could do it just as effectively with 3%.
> 
> A family farm works well if it's small.  But it won't feed that many people.
> 
> The point you miss is that we have agriculture that feeds a hell of a lot of people because we treat it like a national resource that is subsidized and supported by government, from everything to vast irrigation projects to rural electrification to price supports.
> 
> In short, the exact oppossite of what you Ayn Randian wingnuts propose.
Click to expand...


Contrary to what liberals like you would like to believe...the nation's farmers were feeding a hell of a lot of people LONG before the government introduced farm subsidies.


----------



## Oldstyle

It wasn't until the 1930's that government interfered at all with farming.  Up until that point Americans were the best fed people on the planet!  Gee, how DID we survive without help from the Federal Government!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I[
> 
> We were founded as a nation of farmers. All the government subsidies did was make it impossible for the family farmer. We have few farmers because we have so many subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see what happened was that mechanization and irrigation and improved genetics and treating farming as a SCIENCE meant that you didn't need 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.  You could do it just as effectively with 3%.
> 
> A family farm works well if it's small.  But it won't feed that many people.
> 
> The point you miss is that we have agriculture that feeds a hell of a lot of people because we treat it like a national resource that is subsidized and supported by government, from everything to vast irrigation projects to rural electrification to price supports.
> 
> In short, the exact oppossite of what you Ayn Randian wingnuts propose.
Click to expand...


I'm confused, if the technology improved efficiency and yield, why do they need subsidies?

Also did Ann Rynd turn you away from being a Republican?


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I[
> 
> We were founded as a nation of farmers. All the government subsidies did was make it impossible for the family farmer. We have few farmers because we have so many subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see what happened was that mechanization and irrigation and improved genetics and treating farming as a SCIENCE meant that you didn't need 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.  You could do it just as effectively with 3%.
> 
> A family farm works well if it's small.  But it won't feed that many people.
> 
> The point you miss is that we have agriculture that feeds a hell of a lot of people because we treat it like a national resource that is subsidized and supported by government, from everything to vast irrigation projects to rural electrification to price supports.
> 
> In short, the exact oppossite of what you Ayn Randian wingnuts propose.
Click to expand...


don't even get me started on Randians like Paul Ryan (R) & Greenspan!!!


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I'm a European History major, Joe...I know quite a bit about the Berlin Wall.  I know for instance that the Soviet bloc nations secured their borders with fences, mine fields, dogs, machine guns and guards.  They typically had a depopulated zone on the eastern side of the border...something that wasn't possible with Berlin which is why they were forced to build the Berlin Wall.  I know that the border guards were only allowed to be married men with families to keep them from crossing the border themselves.  I know that over 3 million East Germans fled the East for West Germany before the communists built the Iron Curtain to keep them from leaving.  You obviously don't know much about Germany following WWII.



All of this is relevent to Cuba, how exactly?  

Germans fled East Germany because it was occuppied by the RUSSIANS, you mope.  

Again, I find it hilarious that you guys think that the Berlin Wall was so horrible, but you'd build one just like it on the Southern border to keep the Mexicans out.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I[
> 
> We were founded as a nation of farmers. All the government subsidies did was make it impossible for the family farmer. We have few farmers because we have so many subsidies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see what happened was that mechanization and irrigation and improved genetics and treating farming as a SCIENCE meant that you didn't need 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.  You could do it just as effectively with 3%.
> 
> A family farm works well if it's small.  But it won't feed that many people.
> 
> The point you miss is that we have agriculture that feeds a hell of a lot of people because we treat it like a national resource that is subsidized and supported by government, from everything to vast irrigation projects to rural electrification to price supports.
> 
> In short, the exact oppossite of what you Ayn Randian wingnuts propose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused, if the technology improved efficiency and yield, why do they need subsidies?
> 
> Also did Ann Rynd turn you away from being a Republican?
Click to expand...


Naw, that was my Ex-boss saying, "I can totally screw you over because I don't have to deal with a union."  I've explained this, are you fucking dense?

They need subsidies because if you relied on "supply and demand", you wouldn't have an even supply and demand.  Farmers would grow what made them money, not what the population needed.   Agriculture works in this country because it is HIGHLY government regulated.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> It wasn't until the 1930's that government interfered at all with farming.  Up until that point Americans were the best fed people on the planet!  Gee, how DID we survive without help from the Federal Government!!!!



Um, yeah, about that... 












Um, yeah, America was an agricultural paradise before that commie FDR messed everything up by making sure the food supply was consistant.


----------



## Billo_Really

When Reagan hit the WH in 1981, the federal debt was *$934 billion*.  Because of his tax cuts for the rich, when he left in 1989, the federal debt ballooned to *$2.7 trillion*.  Those bullshit tax cuts continued to add to the debt under Reagan's successor, Bush41, who left office in 1993 with a federal debt at *$4.2 trillion*.

It wasn't until Bill Clinton took office, did the debt begin to stabilize at $5.7 trillion (after Clinton pushed through tax increases).  When Clinton left office in 2001, there was a budget surplus of *$236 billion *and a 10-year projected budget surplus of *$5.6 trillion*.

That's right, a *surplus $5.6 trillion*.  As in, no federal debt!

That all changed with Bush43 cutting taxes for the rich and starting two wars.  By 2008, the federal debt was over *$9.6 trillion*, couples with zero job growth during his two terms.

You can blame Obama for *$8 trillion*, but the other *$9 trillion *of federal debt are the fault of 3 republican Presidents.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I'm a European History major, Joe...I know quite a bit about the Berlin Wall.  I know for instance that the Soviet bloc nations secured their borders with fences, mine fields, dogs, machine guns and guards.  They typically had a depopulated zone on the eastern side of the border...something that wasn't possible with Berlin which is why they were forced to build the Berlin Wall.  I know that the border guards were only allowed to be married men with families to keep them from crossing the border themselves.  I know that over 3 million East Germans fled the East for West Germany before the communists built the Iron Curtain to keep them from leaving.  You obviously don't know much about Germany following WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is relevent to Cuba, how exactly?
> 
> Germans fled East Germany because it was occuppied by the RUSSIANS, you mope.
> 
> Again, I find it hilarious that you guys think that the Berlin Wall was so horrible, but you'd build one just like it on the Southern border to keep the Mexicans out.
Click to expand...


That's the difference, your government built walls to keep people IN


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't until the 1930's that government interfered at all with farming.  Up until that point Americans were the best fed people on the planet!  Gee, how DID we survive without help from the Federal Government!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, about that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, America was an agricultural paradise before that commie FDR messed everything up by making sure the food supply was consistant.
Click to expand...


The Dust Bowl happened under FDR


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't until the 1930's that government interfered at all with farming.  Up until that point Americans were the best fed people on the planet!  Gee, how DID we survive without help from the Federal Government!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, about that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, America was an agricultural paradise before that commie FDR messed everything up by making sure the food supply was consistant.
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

So Obama's record food stamp useage is good?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Billo_Really said:


> When Reagan hit the WH in 1981, the federal debt was *$934 billion*.  Because of his tax cuts for the rich, when he left in 1989, the federal debt ballooned to *$2.7 trillion*.  Those bullshit tax cuts continued to add to the debt under Reagan's successor, Bush41, who left office in 1993 with a federal debt at *$4.2 trillion*.
> 
> It wasn't until Bill Clinton took office, did the debt begin to stabilize at $5.7 trillion (after Clinton pushed through tax increases).  When Clinton left office in 2001, there was a budget surplus of *$236 billion *and a 10-year projected budget surplus of *$5.6 trillion*.
> 
> That's right, a *surplus $5.6 trillion*.  As in, no federal debt!
> 
> That all changed with Bush43 cutting taxes for the rich and starting two wars.  By 2008, the federal debt was over *$9.6 trillion*, couples with zero job growth during his two terms.
> 
> You can blame Obama for *$8 trillion*, but the other *$9 trillion *of federal debt are the fault of 3 republican Presidents.



Trying cashing a check based on projections


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see what happened was that mechanization and irrigation and improved genetics and treating farming as a SCIENCE meant that you didn't need 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.  You could do it just as effectively with 3%.
> 
> A family farm works well if it's small.  But it won't feed that many people.
> 
> The point you miss is that we have agriculture that feeds a hell of a lot of people because we treat it like a national resource that is subsidized and supported by government, from everything to vast irrigation projects to rural electrification to price supports.
> 
> In short, the exact oppossite of what you Ayn Randian wingnuts propose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused, if the technology improved efficiency and yield, why do they need subsidies?
> 
> Also did Ann Rynd turn you away from being a Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, that was my Ex-boss saying, "I can totally screw you over because I don't have to deal with a union."  I've explained this, are you fucking dense?
> 
> They need subsidies because if you relied on "supply and demand", you wouldn't have an even supply and demand.  Farmers would grow what made them money, not what the population needed.   Agriculture works in this country because it is HIGHLY government regulated.
Click to expand...


Were you in a Union when you were hired?

So you believe that people wouldn't need to eat unless the government subsidized farmers.  OK, no wonder your Boss thought you were an idiot


----------



## Jroc

Billo_Really said:


> When Reagan hit the WH in 1981, the federal debt was *$934 billion*.  Because of his tax cuts for the rich, when he left in 1989, the federal debt ballooned to *$2.7 trillion*.  Those bullshit tax cuts continued to add to the debt under Reagan's successor, Bush41, who left office in 1993 with a federal debt at *$4.2 trillion*.
> 
> It wasn't until Bill Clinton took office, did the debt begin to stabilize at $5.7 trillion (after Clinton pushed through tax increases).  When Clinton left office in 2001, there was a budget surplus of *$236 billion *and a 10-year projected budget surplus of *$5.6 trillion*.
> 
> That's right, a *surplus $5.6 trillion*.  As in, no federal debt!
> 
> That all changed with Bush43 cutting taxes for the rich and starting two wars.  By 2008, the federal debt was over *$9.6 trillion*, couples with zero job growth during his two terms.
> 
> You can blame Obama for *$8 trillion*, but the other *$9 trillion *of federal debt are the fault of 3 republican Presidents.



That's comical.. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies which were still working Clinton also benefited form the Reagan peace dividend and the Republican control of congress which kept Clinton form spending on Hillery-care and forced him to sign welfare reform among other things, there's no such thing as "the Clinton surplus"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Billo_Really said:


> When Reagan hit the WH in 1981, the federal debt was *$934 billion*.  Because of his tax cuts for the rich, when he left in 1989, the federal debt ballooned to *$2.7 trillion*.  Those bullshit tax cuts continued to add to the debt under Reagan's successor, Bush41, who left office in 1993 with a federal debt at *$4.2 trillion*.
> 
> It wasn't until Bill Clinton took office, did the debt begin to stabilize at $5.7 trillion (after Clinton pushed through tax increases).  When Clinton left office in 2001, there was a budget surplus of *$236 billion *and a 10-year projected budget surplus of *$5.6 trillion*.
> 
> That's right, a *surplus $5.6 trillion*.  As in, no federal debt!
> 
> That all changed with Bush43 cutting taxes for the rich and starting two wars.  By 2008, the federal debt was over *$9.6 trillion*, couples with zero job growth during his two terms.
> 
> You can blame Obama for *$8 trillion*, but the other *$9 trillion *of federal debt are the fault of 3 republican Presidents.



So in 5 years Obama racked up more debt than three other Presidents did in 20...and you;re proud of that?


----------



## Peterf

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see what happened was that mechanization and irrigation and improved genetics and treating farming as a SCIENCE meant that you didn't need 70% of the population engaged in agriculture.  You could do it just as effectively with 3%.
> 
> A family farm works well if it's small.  But it won't feed that many people.
> 
> The point you miss is that we have agriculture that feeds a hell of a lot of people because we treat it like a national resource that is subsidized and supported by government, from everything to vast irrigation projects to rural electrification to price supports.
> 
> In short, the exact oppossite of what you Ayn Randian wingnuts propose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused, if the technology improved efficiency and yield, why do they need subsidies?
> 
> Also did Ann Rynd turn you away from being a Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, that was my Ex-boss saying, "I can totally screw you over because I don't have to deal with a union."  I've explained this, are you fucking dense?
> 
> They need subsidies because if you relied on "supply and demand", you wouldn't have an even supply and demand.  Farmers would grow what made them money, not what the population needed.   Agriculture works in this country because it is HIGHLY government regulated.
Click to expand...


People will buy the food they need.   If farmers grow it they will make money.   If they are growing products for which there is no demand they will switch.   This is not hard to understand.  Its called the market and it works.   Politicians who tamper with it do so at their peril - well, not THEIR peril but the peril of those unfortunate people they rule over.

Subsidised, regulated and planned agriculture has been tried in many countries; it has always failed.   We have the dreadful example of the Soviet Empire before us.   For decades it could only feed its populations by importing food produced by the free farmers in the US.


----------



## Billo_Really

CrusaderFrank said:


> So in 5 years Obama racked up more debt than three other Presidents did in 20...and you;re proud of that?


17 - 9 = 8

Last I looked, 8 is less than 9.


----------



## Billo_Really

Jroc said:


> That's comical.. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies which were still working Clinton also benefited form the Reagan peace dividend and the Republican control of congress which kept Clinton form spending on Hillery-care and forced him to sign welfare reform among other things, there's no such thing as "the Clinton surplus"


Not after Bush43 did his thing.


----------



## Billo_Really

CrusaderFrank said:


> Trying cashing a check based on projections


You have more of a chance of it being honored with a projected surplus, than a projected debt.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't until the 1930's that government interfered at all with farming.  Up until that point Americans were the best fed people on the planet!  Gee, how DID we survive without help from the Federal Government!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, about that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, America was an agricultural paradise before that commie FDR messed everything up by making sure the food supply was consistant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dust Bowl happened under FDR
Click to expand...


I realize you are like, stupid and stuff... but the CAUSES of the Dust Bowl pre-date FDR.  

Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I'm a European History major, Joe...I know quite a bit about the Berlin Wall.  I know for instance that the Soviet bloc nations secured their borders with fences, mine fields, dogs, machine guns and guards.  They typically had a depopulated zone on the eastern side of the border...something that wasn't possible with Berlin which is why they were forced to build the Berlin Wall.  I know that the border guards were only allowed to be married men with families to keep them from crossing the border themselves.  I know that over 3 million East Germans fled the East for West Germany before the communists built the Iron Curtain to keep them from leaving.  You obviously don't know much about Germany following WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is relevent to Cuba, how exactly?
> 
> Germans fled East Germany because it was occuppied by the RUSSIANS, you mope.
> 
> Again, I find it hilarious that you guys think that the Berlin Wall was so horrible, but you'd build one just like it on the Southern border to keep the Mexicans out.
Click to expand...


Ah, Joe?  The Berlin Wall was built by the Russians to keep people from *escaping* communism...the wall we've built on our southern border is to keep people from coming *into* the United States.  We need a wall because so many want to come here we can't absorb the influx.  It would be the SAME as the Berlin Wall if we were building something to keep OUR people from leaving.  Duh?

Give you progressives a few more decades and that may very well be the case...


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, about that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, America was an agricultural paradise before that commie FDR messed everything up by making sure the food supply was consistant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dust Bowl happened under FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize you are like, stupid and stuff... but the CAUSES of the Dust Bowl pre-date FDR.
> 
> Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



I hate to break this to you, Joe but you know as little about the origins of food subsidies and the results of government intervention into farming as you do about the Berlin Wall and Cuba.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I'm a European History major, Joe...I know quite a bit about the Berlin Wall.  I know for instance that the Soviet bloc nations secured their borders with fences, mine fields, dogs, machine guns and guards.  They typically had a depopulated zone on the eastern side of the border...something that wasn't possible with Berlin which is why they were forced to build the Berlin Wall.  I know that the border guards were only allowed to be married men with families to keep them from crossing the border themselves.  I know that over 3 million East Germans fled the East for West Germany before the communists built the Iron Curtain to keep them from leaving.  You obviously don't know much about Germany following WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is relevent to Cuba, how exactly?
> 
> Germans fled East Germany because it was occuppied by the RUSSIANS, you mope.
> 
> Again, I find it hilarious that you guys think that the Berlin Wall was so horrible, but you'd build one just like it on the Southern border to keep the Mexicans out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Joe?  The Berlin Wall was built by the Russians to keep people from *escaping* communism...the wall we've built on our southern border is to keep people from coming *into* the United States.  We need a wall because so many want to come here we can't absorb the influx.  It would be the SAME as the Berlin Wall if we were building something to keep OUR people from leaving.  Duh?
> 
> Give you progressives a few more decades and that may very well be the case...
Click to expand...


Actually, the Berlin Wall was built by the East Germans, who were a bit embarrassed so many of their citizens were going over to collect the bribe that West Germans were offering defectors.  

Oh, yeah, and about 43,000 ethnic germans were moving to the west every year in 1985.  By 1988, it increased to 202,000.  The "Curtain" was maybe made of nylon..  A total of 3 million germans moved west in total.  


Eeeeeek, Communism.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dust Bowl happened under FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you are like, stupid and stuff... but the CAUSES of the Dust Bowl pre-date FDR.
> 
> Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Joe but you know as little about the origins of food subsidies and the results of government intervention into farming as you do about the Berlin Wall and Cuba.
Click to expand...


Uh, yeah, guy. Tell yourself that.  Maybe you need to stop learning your history from John Birch websites.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is relevent to Cuba, how exactly?
> 
> Germans fled East Germany because it was occuppied by the RUSSIANS, you mope.
> 
> Again, I find it hilarious that you guys think that the Berlin Wall was so horrible, but you'd build one just like it on the Southern border to keep the Mexicans out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Joe?  The Berlin Wall was built by the Russians to keep people from *escaping* communism...the wall we've built on our southern border is to keep people from coming *into* the United States.  We need a wall because so many want to come here we can't absorb the influx.  It would be the SAME as the Berlin Wall if we were building something to keep OUR people from leaving.  Duh?
> 
> Give you progressives a few more decades and that may very well be the case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Berlin Wall was built by the East Germans, who were a bit embarrassed so many of their citizens were going over to collect the bribe that West Germans were offering defectors.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and about 43,000 ethnic germans were moving to the west every year in 1985.  By 1988, it increased to 202,000.  The "Curtain" was maybe made of nylon..  A total of 3 million germans moved west in total.
> 
> 
> Eeeeeek, Communism.
Click to expand...

The Berlin Wall was a monument of the failure of communism. Failure is something you must understand quite well.

* In 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk proclaimed, "The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it isit is to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to Communist failure."*


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Joe?  The Berlin Wall was built by the Russians to keep people from *escaping* communism...the wall we've built on our southern border is to keep people from coming *into* the United States.  We need a wall because so many want to come here we can't absorb the influx.  It would be the SAME as the Berlin Wall if we were building something to keep OUR people from leaving.  Duh?
> 
> Give you progressives a few more decades and that may very well be the case...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Berlin Wall was built by the East Germans, who were a bit embarrassed so many of their citizens were going over to collect the bribe that West Germans were offering defectors.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and about 43,000 ethnic germans were moving to the west every year in 1985.  By 1988, it increased to 202,000.  The "Curtain" was maybe made of nylon..  A total of 3 million germans moved west in total.
> 
> 
> Eeeeeek, Communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Berlin Wall was a monument of the failure of communism. Failure is something you must understand quite well.
> 
> * In 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk proclaimed, "The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it isit is to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to Communist failure."*
Click to expand...


Again, Capitalism failed a whole 20 years after Communism did.  

Maybe we need to try something new.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Berlin Wall was built by the East Germans, who were a bit embarrassed so many of their citizens were going over to collect the bribe that West Germans were offering defectors.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and about 43,000 ethnic germans were moving to the west every year in 1985.  By 1988, it increased to 202,000.  The "Curtain" was maybe made of nylon..  A total of 3 million germans moved west in total.
> 
> 
> Eeeeeek, Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> The Berlin Wall was a monument of the failure of communism. Failure is something you must understand quite well.
> 
> * In 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk proclaimed, "The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it isit is to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to Communist failure."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Capitalism failed a whole 20 years after Communism did.
> 
> Maybe we need to try something new.
Click to expand...

Joe, capitalism has not failed. You have.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Berlin Wall was a monument of the failure of communism. Failure is something you must understand quite well.
> 
> * In 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk proclaimed, "The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it isit is to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to Communist failure."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Capitalism failed a whole 20 years after Communism did.
> 
> Maybe we need to try something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe, capitalism has not failed. You have.
Click to expand...


No, you see, guy, I'm not the one who lost 5 trillion dollars in 2008, and required a government bailout to keep the world from collapsing in to anarchy.  

That would be the capitialist system you love so well.   

Can't claim to be a "Capitalist" when you go to the government for a huge bailout.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Capitalism failed a whole 20 years after Communism did.
> 
> Maybe we need to try something new.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, capitalism has not failed. You have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you see, guy, I'm not the one who lost 5 trillion dollars in 2008, and required a government bailout to keep the world from collapsing in to anarchy.
> 
> That would be the capitialist system you love so well.
> 
> Can't claim to be a "Capitalist" when you go to the government for a huge bailout.
Click to expand...

Don't be an idiot Joe. The entire premise of capitalism is making money as well as losing it. Because it, like everything else is cyclical and money is lost and won, and because you're a loser is not tantamount to the collapse of capitalism. I don't recall capitalism being abandoned following the Great Depression and I don't seeing being abandoned now. Not even the left is that stupid, although you certainly are.


----------



## editec

Capitalism does NOT include giving failed banks trillions of dollars, Meathead.

We do not have a real capitalist economy.

We have a_ kleptocracy by monetarism_ economy.

Some of you on the right recognize the problem but call it socialism.

It isn't socialism, it isn't capitalism, it's plain old corruption from the top.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> [Don't be an idiot Joe. The entire premise of capitalism is making money as well as losing it. Because it, like everything else is cyclical and money is lost and won, and because you're a loser is not tantamount to the collapse of capitalism. I don't recall capitalism being abandoned following the Great Depression and I don't seeing being abandoned now. Not even the left is that stupid, although you certainly are.



Actually, it was abandoned during the Great Depression.  That's why we got the new deal and the SEC and the FDIC and the FSLIC and all the other agencies to keep the Capitalists from fucking shit up with their greed.  

Then in the 1980's, they convinced a senile old actor to become president and dismantle some of these very sensible rules.    

Resulting in the 1989 crash and then the bigger, badder 2008 crash.  

Some of you people just never learn.


----------



## JoeB131

editec said:


> Capitalism does NOT include giving failed banks trillions of dollars, Meathead.
> 
> We do not have a real capitalist economy.
> 
> We have a_ kleptocracy by monetarism_ economy.
> 
> Some of you on the right recognize the problem but call it socialism.
> 
> It isn't socialism, it isn't capitalism, it's plain old corruption from the top.



They capitalize gains for the few and socialize risk amongst the many, that isn't capitalism.  

Kudoos to you, sir!


----------



## Meathead

editec said:


> Capitalism does NOT include giving failed banks trillions of dollars, Meathead.
> 
> We do not have a real capitalist economy.
> 
> We have a_ kleptocracy by monetarism_ economy.
> 
> Some of you on the right recognize the problem but call it socialism.
> 
> It isn't socialism, it isn't capitalism, it's plain old corruption from the top.


Capitalism does not include many things, like welfare state for example. As with all things, modification are made for the common good. Free markets and private property, the cornerstones of capitalism, have survived. Only fools like communists would attempt to change it, especially in view of the dismal failure of other economic systems which try to divorce people form their instincts.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism does NOT include giving failed banks trillions of dollars, Meathead.
> 
> We do not have a real capitalist economy.
> 
> We have a_ kleptocracy by monetarism_ economy.
> 
> Some of you on the right recognize the problem but call it socialism.
> 
> It isn't socialism, it isn't capitalism, it's plain old corruption from the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism does not include many things, like welfare state for example. As with all things, modification are made for the common good. Free markets and private property, the cornerstones of capitalism, have survived. Only fools like communists would attempt to change it, especially in view of the dismal failure of other economic systems which try to divorce people form their instincts.
Click to expand...


The problem with your argument is that "Free Markets" and "Private Property" are illusions.  

If you are dumping cyanide in your water supply to produce a cancer causing product you are selling as kiddie toys, guess what, people are probably going to put a stop to that, pretty quickly, and long before your beloved "Market" does.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism does NOT include giving failed banks trillions of dollars, Meathead.
> 
> We do not have a real capitalist economy.
> 
> We have a_ kleptocracy by monetarism_ economy.
> 
> Some of you on the right recognize the problem but call it socialism.
> 
> It isn't socialism, it isn't capitalism, it's plain old corruption from the top.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism does not include many things, like welfare state for example. As with all things, modification are made for the common good. Free markets and private property, the cornerstones of capitalism, have survived. Only fools like communists would attempt to change it, especially in view of the dismal failure of other economic systems which try to divorce people form their instincts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that "Free Markets" and "Private Property" are illusions.
> 
> If you are dumping cyanide in your water supply to produce a cancer causing product you are selling as kiddie toys, guess what, people are probably going to put a stop to that, pretty quickly, and long before your beloved "Market" does.
Click to expand...

Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?


----------



## thanatos144

Joe is confusing progressivism with capitalism


----------



## CrusaderFrank

thanatos144 said:


> Joe is confusing progressivism with capitalism



Joe used to be a Republican, ya know


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Don't be an idiot Joe. The entire premise of capitalism is making money as well as losing it. Because it, like everything else is cyclical and money is lost and won, and because you're a loser is not tantamount to the collapse of capitalism. I don't recall capitalism being abandoned following the Great Depression and I don't seeing being abandoned now. Not even the left is that stupid, although you certainly are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was abandoned during the Great Depression.  That's why we got the new deal and the SEC and the FDIC and the FSLIC and all the other agencies to keep the Capitalists from fucking shit up with their greed.
> 
> Then in the 1980's, they convinced a senile old actor to become president and dismantle some of these very sensible rules.
> 
> Resulting in the 1989 crash and then the bigger, badder 2008 crash.
> 
> Some of you people just never learn.
Click to expand...


The problems that we face right now can be traced in large part right back *to* FDR and his New Deal.  It isn't capitalists and their greed that threaten our solvency...it's an out of control, cradle to the grave, entitlement society where more people take from the system than put back into the system.  THAT is what is killing this country.  It's not just that there isn't any way to pay for what we've obligated ourselves to...it's that progressives like yourself who believe in "fairness" have sapped America of the one thing that had always made it stronger than anyone else...the American people's self reliance.  The United States of America isn't floundering because Reagan cut regulations...it's floundering because people like you have convinced a large percentage of the US population that someone else OWES them a roof over their heads, food on their table and money in their pocket even if they don't feel like getting off of their couch.


----------



## bendog

So, if one pays social security and medicare taxes throughout their lives until retirement, and then expects to benefit, this scheme is "sapping" America of self-reliance?

I would agree that disibility for adults and medicaid for kids in special education is more and more a bad joke.


----------



## thanatos144

CrusaderFrank said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe is confusing progressivism with capitalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe used to be a Republican, ya know
Click to expand...


And unicorns fart skittles.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism does not include many things, like welfare state for example. As with all things, modification are made for the common good. Free markets and private property, the cornerstones of capitalism, have survived. Only fools like communists would attempt to change it, especially in view of the dismal failure of other economic systems which try to divorce people form their instincts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that "Free Markets" and "Private Property" are illusions.
> 
> If you are dumping cyanide in your water supply to produce a cancer causing product you are selling as kiddie toys, guess what, people are probably going to put a stop to that, pretty quickly, and long before your beloved "Market" does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?
Click to expand...


Your lack of a response is duly noted.   

Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Berlin Wall was built by the East Germans, who were a bit embarrassed so many of their citizens were going over to collect the bribe that West Germans were offering defectors.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and about 43,000 ethnic germans were moving to the west every year in 1985.  By 1988, it increased to 202,000.  The "Curtain" was maybe made of nylon..  A total of 3 million germans moved west in total.
> 
> 
> Eeeeeek, Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> The Berlin Wall was a monument of the failure of communism. Failure is something you must understand quite well.
> 
> * In 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk proclaimed, "The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it isit is to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to Communist failure."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Capitalism failed a whole 20 years after Communism did.
> 
> Maybe we need to try something new.
Click to expand...


True Capitalism never fails..it's crony capitalism which fails


----------



## Oldstyle

bendog said:


> So, if one pays social security and medicare taxes throughout their lives until retirement, and then expects to benefit, this scheme is "sapping" America of self-reliance?
> 
> I would agree that disibility for adults and medicaid for kids in special education is more and more a bad joke.



For God's sake, Ben...what part of we've obligated ourselves to more entitlements than we could EVER pay do you not grasp?  We've reached the point now where more Americans are on food stamps than the populations of Washington, Oregon and California COMBINED!!!  Think about that! 

What's sapping America of the very spirit that made it the greatest country the world has ever known is this notion that the people who have worked hard and made money somehow *owe* those that chose not to work a "living wage".  That's damaging to both the person who DOES succeed...because who's going to kill themselves to become successful only to have the Government take it away your assets to give to someone who never broke a sweat...and to the person that collects this "living wage" because they will NEVER realize their true potential and will NEVER be more than a "welfare slave".


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that "Free Markets" and "Private Property" are illusions.
> 
> If you are dumping cyanide in your water supply to produce a cancer causing product you are selling as kiddie toys, guess what, people are probably going to put a stop to that, pretty quickly, and long before your beloved "Market" does.
> 
> 
> 
> Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
Click to expand...


The reason that people flocked to the United States of America is that we were one of the few places on earth where individuals HAD rights that COULDN'T be taken away by "society".  We change that at our own peril.  When we cease to be a country of individual rights...we cease to be great.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Berlin Wall was a monument of the failure of communism. Failure is something you must understand quite well.
> 
> * In 1961, Secretary of State Dean Rusk proclaimed, "The Wall certainly ought not to be a permanent feature of the European landscape. I see no reason why the Soviet Union should think it isit is to their advantage in any way to leave there that monument to Communist failure."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Capitalism failed a whole 20 years after Communism did.
> 
> Maybe we need to try something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True Capitalism never fails..it's crony capitalism which fails
Click to expand...


Doesnt' that sound like all the Communists who insist that what the USSR had wasn't "True" communism? The Trotskyites claimed it turned away from Communism in 1923 and the Stalinists claim it did in 1956.  

Or all you religious nutters who kill each other because you think the other guy is a heretic and doesn't practice the "True" faith?  

Any philosophy sounds great on paper, and usually gets screwed up when people get involved.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason that people flocked to the United States of America is that we were one of the few places on earth where individuals HAD rights that COULDN'T be taken away by "society".  We change that at our own peril.  When we cease to be a country of individual rights...we cease to be great.
Click to expand...


Really? 

I think the Native Americans who had their lands stolen would disagree with you, if we hadn't genocided the shit out of them. 

The blacks who were held in slavery for half our history and regulated to second class citizenship for the other half would disagree with you as well.  

Hey, but if you really want to hear about people who flocked here for rights, how about the Japanese Americans.   Yeah, they had all sorts of rights.. .until 1942, anyway.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that "Free Markets" and "Private Property" are illusions.
> 
> If you are dumping cyanide in your water supply to produce a cancer causing product you are selling as kiddie toys, guess what, people are probably going to put a stop to that, pretty quickly, and long before your beloved "Market" does.
> 
> 
> 
> Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
Click to expand...

Seriously Joey?! You consider free markets and private property an allusion (sic)?! Then the bit about dumping cyanide into my water supply some sort of legitimate response.

How stupid are you? Seriously, are you under some sort of professional care?


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously Joey?! You consider free markets and private property an allusion (sic)?! Then the bit about dumping cyanide into my water supply some sort of legitimate response.
> 
> How stupid are you? Seriously, are you under some sort of professional care?
Click to expand...


NOt at all.  

If it's my property the factory is on, it's really none of your business what I'm dumping into the water table. 

And if you are dumb enough to buy my dangerous toys, it's your own damned fault.  "_Caveat Emptor_, Baby.  

Oh, no, wait. the COMMON GOOD outweighs that.  What a fucking concept.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Joey?! You consider free markets and private property an allusion (sic)?! Then the bit about dumping cyanide into my water supply some sort of legitimate response.
> 
> How stupid are you? Seriously, are you under some sort of professional care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOt at all.
> 
> If it's my property the factory is on, it's really none of your business what I'm dumping into the water table.
> 
> And if you are dumb enough to buy my dangerous toys, it's your own damned fault.  "_Caveat Emptor_, Baby.
> 
> Oh, no, wait. the COMMON GOOD outweighs that.  What a fucking concept.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea wtf you're babbling about?


----------



## JoeB131

Yeah, I do.  

I don't think you do, because I've explained it to you twice and you still don't get it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that "Free Markets" and "Private Property" are illusions.
> 
> If you are dumping cyanide in your water supply to produce a cancer causing product you are selling as kiddie toys, guess what, people are probably going to put a stop to that, pretty quickly, and long before your beloved "Market" does.
> 
> 
> 
> Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
Click to expand...


Marxists believe that there are no rights. There is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, I do.
> 
> I don't think you do, because I've explained it to you twice and you still don't get it.


I have little doubt in the world of JoeB it makes perfect sense. But then by God's grace, so few of us live there.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very stupid retort, but par for the course. Just how stupid are you Joey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marxists believe that there are no rights. There is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
Click to expand...


No, that's what EVERYONE believes.  

Its why you can't go streaking naked down mainstreet today, guy.  Because the rest of society has decided they don't want to see your junk, sight unseen.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I do.
> 
> I don't think you do, because I've explained it to you twice and you still don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have little doubt in the world of JoeB it makes perfect sense. But then by God's grace, so few of us live there.
Click to expand...


In your world, denial of reality is pretty easy.  

You rail against the strictures of civilized society, but you'd never want to live without them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of a response is duly noted.
> 
> Here's a hint. There are no rights. THere is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxists believe that there are no rights. There is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's what EVERYONE believes.
> 
> Its why you can't go streaking naked down mainstreet today, guy.  Because the rest of society has decided they don't want to see your junk, sight unseen.
Click to expand...


No Honey Boo Boo, Marxists believe that the state owns everything and they deign to allocate you what they think you're entitled to


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I do.
> 
> I don't think you do, because I've explained it to you twice and you still don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have little doubt in the world of JoeB it makes perfect sense. But then by God's grace, so few of us live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your world, denial of reality is pretty easy.
> 
> You rail against the strictures of civilized society, but you'd never want to live without them.
Click to expand...

Why would I rail against a civilized society? I live in one. You live in a shit hole called Chicago. You should be railing for one ffs!


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Capitalism failed a whole 20 years after Communism did.
> 
> Maybe we need to try something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True Capitalism never fails..it's crony capitalism which fails
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesnt' that sound like all the Communists who insist that what the USSR had wasn't "True" communism? The Trotskyites claimed it turned away from Communism in 1923 and the Stalinists claim it did in 1956.
> 
> Or all you religious nutters who kill each other because you think the other guy is a heretic and doesn't practice the "True" faith?
> 
> Any philosophy sounds great on paper, and usually gets screwed up when people get involved.
Click to expand...



You're all over the map.... Lets keep it simple for you Joey


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws]Milton Friedman - I, Pencil - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Oldstyle

Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.



He used ta be a Republican, until be became a Communist


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxists believe that there are no rights. There is no Private Property.  There is only what the rest of society agrees you should have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what EVERYONE believes.
> 
> Its why you can't go streaking naked down mainstreet today, guy.  Because the rest of society has decided they don't want to see your junk, sight unseen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Honey Boo Boo, Marxists believe that the state owns everything and they deign to allocate you what they think you're entitled to
Click to expand...


No, you see, guy, civilized societies have been doing that LONG before there was a guy named Marx....


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have little doubt in the world of JoeB it makes perfect sense. But then by God's grace, so few of us live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your world, denial of reality is pretty easy.
> 
> You rail against the strictures of civilized society, but you'd never want to live without them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I rail against a civilized society? I live in one. You live in a shit hole called Chicago. You should be railing for one ffs!
Click to expand...


You live in Germany's Whorehouse, you should talk.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.



One more time for the stupid. 

Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him. 

What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
Click to expand...


Cuba is impoverished because it's employed a Marxist form of government for the past 50 years.  It would have gone belly up long ago if it weren't for the Soviets providing them with billions of dollars in annual subsidies.  Now the Cuban government is encouraging private enterprise (ie capitalism!!!) in an effort to jump start their floundering economy because they no longer get that money from the USSR.

You know so little about Cuba it's laughable, Joe...


----------



## Oldstyle

Reagan's policies touched off the greatest period of wealth creation this country has ever seen, Joe.  This liberal myth that Reagan somehow "fucked things up" is amusing.  "The misery index, defined as the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate, shrunk from 19.33 when he began his administration to 9.72 when he left, the greatest improvement record for a President since Harry S. Truman left office.[33] In terms of American households, the percentage of total households making less than $10,000 a year (in real 2007 dollars) shrunk from 8.8% in 1980 to 8.3% in 1988 while the percentage of households making over $75,000 went from 20.2% to 25.7% during that period, both signs of progress.[34]"  Wikipedia.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because it's employed a Marxist form of government for the past 50 years.  It would have gone belly up long ago if it weren't for the Soviets providing them with billions of dollars in annual subsidies.  Now the Cuban government is encouraging private enterprise (ie capitalism!!!) in an effort to jump start their floundering economy because they no longer get that money from the USSR.
> 
> You know so little about Cuba it's laughable, Joe...
Click to expand...


Guy, Soviets have been gone for 20 years, Cuba is still there. 

But the assholes in Miami are STILL insisting we keep sanction on until the Cuban people admit they were wrong for chasing them out, and our gutless politicians go along with it.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Reagan's policies touched off the greatest period of wealth creation this country has ever seen, Joe.  This liberal myth that Reagan somehow "fucked things up" is amusing.  "The misery index, defined as the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate, shrunk from 19.33 when he began his administration to 9.72 when he left, the greatest improvement record for a President since Harry S. Truman left office.[33] In terms of American households, the percentage of total households making less than $10,000 a year (in real 2007 dollars) shrunk from 8.8% in 1980 to 8.3% in 1988 while the percentage of households making over $75,000 went from 20.2% to 25.7% during that period, both signs of progress.[34]"  Wikipedia.



Reagan defeated inflation by gutting the middle class.  

Here's the real sign of how fucked up things are.  Adjusted for inflation, middle class wages have been flat, while CEO Compensation has increased 400%.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because it's employed a Marxist form of government for the past 50 years.  It would have gone belly up long ago if it weren't for the Soviets providing them with billions of dollars in annual subsidies.  Now the Cuban government is encouraging private enterprise (ie capitalism!!!) in an effort to jump start their floundering economy because they no longer get that money from the USSR.
> 
> You know so little about Cuba it's laughable, Joe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, Soviets have been gone for 20 years, Cuba is still there.
Click to expand...

Cuba's an island, and despite Obama's democrats geological observations, islands do not tip over and disappear into the sea.

Guam Island will tip over according to US Rep Hank Johnson


----------



## JoeB131

No, they don't.  

They also don't topple national heroes, because their former oppressors insist they do so, apparently.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> No, they don't.
> 
> They also don't topple national heroes, because their former oppressors insist they do so, apparently.


Then your observation that "Cuba is still there" seems as pointless as the one above.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.
> 
> They also don't topple national heroes, because their former oppressors insist they do so, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> Then your observation that "Cuba is still there" seems as pointless as the one above.
Click to expand...


Um, no, just because you don't understand a point doesn't make it any less valid...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
Click to expand...


Cuba is impoverished because that's the pot of stale bread at the end of the Rainbow of every single Progressive economy


----------



## Meathead

Was there the possibility that Cuba would no longer be there. You're not the sharpest tack in the world, but again you do understand that islands do not tip over.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because it's employed a Marxist form of government for the past 50 years.  It would have gone belly up long ago if it weren't for the Soviets providing them with billions of dollars in annual subsidies.  Now the Cuban government is encouraging private enterprise (ie capitalism!!!) in an effort to jump start their floundering economy because they no longer get that money from the USSR.
> 
> You know so little about Cuba it's laughable, Joe...
Click to expand...


JoeB is convinced that this time they'll do Marxism right


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe B's problem is that he's wearing ideological "blinders" that make him see all of the problems inherent with capitalism while not seeing the good things that it provides.  The truth of the matter is...capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system known to man...yet Joe wants to replace it with systems that have impoverished countries like Cuba.  He's a sad combination of naive and willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because that's the pot of stale bread at the end of the Rainbow of every single Progressive economy
Click to expand...


Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because that's the pot of stale bread at the end of the Rainbow of every single Progressive economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
Click to expand...


You really are what Stalin called useful idiot


----------



## Meathead

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because that's the pot of stale bread at the end of the Rainbow of every single Progressive economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are what Stalin called useful idiot
Click to expand...

That term is normally attributed to another one of Joe's heroes, Lenin. But your point is spot on.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because that's the pot of stale bread at the end of the Rainbow of every single Progressive economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are what Stalin called useful idiot
Click to expand...


You really are what EVERYONE calls a plain old idiot. 

Hey, how come the Cuban people didn't overthrow Castro when the rest of the world was getting rid of their communist dictators?


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are what Stalin called useful idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are what EVERYONE calls a plain old idiot.
> 
> Hey, how come the Cuban people didn't overthrow Castro when the rest of the world was getting rid of their communist dictators?
Click to expand...


Because the government had guns and the people didn't you dumb f***


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are what Stalin called useful idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are what EVERYONE calls a plain old idiot.
> 
> Hey, how come the Cuban people didn't overthrow Castro when the rest of the world was getting rid of their communist dictators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the government had guns and the people didn't you dumb f***
Click to expand...


But that was equally true in East Germany and Romania and Bulgaria and Russia.  

You see, the problem is, you look at Cuba and see "Eeeek, Communism". 

I look at Cuba as a country that got sick and tired of being abused by a larger, richer neighbor. 

At some point, we need to stop drunk dialing and respect their decision.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are what EVERYONE calls a plain old idiot.
> 
> Hey, how come the Cuban people didn't overthrow Castro when the rest of the world was getting rid of their communist dictators?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the government had guns and the people didn't you dumb f***
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that was equally true in East Germany and Romania and Bulgaria and Russia.
> 
> You see, the problem is, you look at Cuba and see "Eeeek, Communism".
> 
> I look at Cuba as a country that got sick and tired of being abused by a larger, richer neighbor.
> 
> At some point, we need to stop drunk dialing and respect their decision.
Click to expand...


Good to know how communism fell in eastern Europe right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are what EVERYONE calls a plain old idiot.
> 
> Hey, how come the Cuban people didn't overthrow Castro when the rest of the world was getting rid of their communist dictators?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the government had guns and the people didn't you dumb f***
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that was equally true in East Germany and Romania and Bulgaria and Russia.
> 
> You see, the problem is, you look at Cuba and see "Eeeek, Communism".
> 
> I look at Cuba as a country that got sick and tired of being abused by a larger, richer neighbor.
> 
> At some point, we need to stop drunk dialing and respect their decision.
Click to expand...


I look at Joe and see a genuine Communist dupe, someone in love with the idea of the "workers Paradise" and oblivious to its  horrific reality. Further he's never heard of the Hungarian uprising or the Berlin blockade


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the government had guns and the people didn't you dumb f***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that was equally true in East Germany and Romania and Bulgaria and Russia.
> 
> You see, the problem is, you look at Cuba and see "Eeeek, Communism".
> 
> I look at Cuba as a country that got sick and tired of being abused by a larger, richer neighbor.
> 
> At some point, we need to stop drunk dialing and respect their decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good to know how communism fell in eastern Europe right?
Click to expand...


Again, you are mistaking the failure of a country for the failure of a political system. 

Some of those countries have voted the Communists back into power.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the government had guns and the people didn't you dumb f***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that was equally true in East Germany and Romania and Bulgaria and Russia.
> 
> You see, the problem is, you look at Cuba and see "Eeeek, Communism".
> 
> I look at Cuba as a country that got sick and tired of being abused by a larger, richer neighbor.
> 
> At some point, we need to stop drunk dialing and respect their decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at Joe and see a genuine Communist dupe, someone in love with the idea of the "workers Paradise" and oblivious to its  horrific reality. Further he's never heard of the Hungarian uprising or the Berlin blockade
Click to expand...


This would be the same Hungary that threw in with Hitler during the war wondering why the Russians weren't so keen on them?  

Frankly, we had a "Worker's Paradise" in this country during the 1950's.  Working guys belonged to unions, got good pay, the rich paid their fair share, we built some awesome public works and life was good.  (Unless you were black in the South).  

Until Reagan fucked it up, anyway.


----------



## thanatos144

Joe is a damn fool


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more time for the stupid.
> 
> Cuba is "impoverished" because we've been waging a 50 year vindictive economic war on her for taking Meyer Lansky's casinos away from him.
> 
> What brought people out of poverty isn't Capitalism.  It was that we had this thing called "A Labor Movement" in this country.  Look it up, dumbass, it was in all the history books. And shit was pretty good, until a senile, braindamaged actor got into the White HOuse and fucked it up for the rest of us. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because that's the pot of stale bread at the end of the Rainbow of every single Progressive economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
Click to expand...


Once again, Joe...you show yourself to be utterly CLUELESS about Cuba.  Before the revolution Cuba's GDP was higher than Japan's and the average Cuban was far better off economically than they are now.  When the Soviet Union collapsed and billions in subsidies stopped coming to Cuba the GDP in Cuba fell by almost a third.

"Today the Cuban worker's average monthly salary is 203 Cuban pesos-around $9.25. That means an average hourly wage of five cents. A Cuban worker has to toil twenty-six hours for a can of evaporated milk ($1.30); seven hours for an ounce of coffee ($0.33); forty-four hours for a tube of toothpaste ($2.20); two hundred hours for a ten-dollar pair of trousers; one hundred sixty hours for an eight-dollar shirt; sixty hours for a three-dollar pair of panties and fifty hours for a $2.50 bra.

The above statistics are from the Cuban Institute of Independent Union Studies (Instituto Cubano de Estudios Sindicales Independientes, or ICESI).

Boy...what a "worker's Paradise" Joe!!!


----------



## Jroc

> *Castro's victims*
> 
> Experts estimate that about 100,000 people have died as a result of Fidel Castro's revolution.
> BY FRANCES ROBLES
> 
> More than 4,000 were killed by Fidel Castro's firing squads. Many others lost their lives fighting for and against him. Some drowned trying to leave Cuba.
> 
> The exact body count is elusive, but experts who keep track of those killed as a result of Castro's revolution know this much: During his nearly five decades in power, the toll kept mounting.
> 
> Armando Lago, a Cuban exile and economist who made a personal quest of counting the people who lost their lives as a direct consequence of Castro, estimates the total at well over 100,000.
> 
> His latest update on Dec. 31 2007 showed 4,074 people were killed by Castro's firing squads and 1,334 were the victims of extrajudicial killings. Another 16,282 died in combat, fighting both for and against Castro, both in Cuba and in places abroad like Angola.
> 
> The bulk of the other deaths will likely never be proven: he used a a mathematical formula based on U.S. Coast Guard and other figures to estimate that 77,833 would-be migrants drowned at sea.
> 
> "I am doing something for the history of Cuba," Lago said in a 2006 interview. îîI am making it my task to let the world know about this."



Fidel Castro | MiamiHerald.com


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is impoverished because that's the pot of stale bread at the end of the Rainbow of every single Progressive economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, Joe...you show yourself to be utterly CLUELESS about Cuba.  *Before the revolution Cuba's GDP was higher than Japan's and the average Cuban was far better off economically than they are now.  *When the Soviet Union collapsed and billions in subsidies stopped coming to Cuba the GDP in Cuba fell by almost a third.
> 
> "Today the Cuban worker's average monthly salary is 203 Cuban pesos-around $9.25. That means an average hourly wage of five cents. A Cuban worker has to toil twenty-six hours for a can of evaporated milk ($1.30); seven hours for an ounce of coffee ($0.33); forty-four hours for a tube of toothpaste ($2.20); two hundred hours for a ten-dollar pair of trousers; one hundred sixty hours for an eight-dollar shirt; sixty hours for a three-dollar pair of panties and fifty hours for a $2.50 bra.
Click to expand...


I want to take a minute to dwell on that bit of intelectual dishonesty.  

Before the Cuban Revolution, Japan looked like THIS... 







Because we had bombed the SHIT out of it.  Besides the fact I kind of doubt your figures, I think the very fact you cherry picked that comparison speaks volumes.  

And again, the reason why life in Cuba is so miserable is because we've been spending 50 years economically punishing them for rejecting us.  

It's like saying you ex-girlfriend is a loser after you slashed her tires, called her boss and said she had AIDS, and burned down her house.  

Sick.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Joe...you show yourself to be utterly CLUELESS about Cuba.  *Before the revolution Cuba's GDP was higher than Japan's and the average Cuban was far better off economically than they are now.  *When the Soviet Union collapsed and billions in subsidies stopped coming to Cuba the GDP in Cuba fell by almost a third.
> 
> "Today the Cuban worker's average monthly salary is 203 Cuban pesos-around $9.25. That means an average hourly wage of five cents. A Cuban worker has to toil twenty-six hours for a can of evaporated milk ($1.30); seven hours for an ounce of coffee ($0.33); forty-four hours for a tube of toothpaste ($2.20); two hundred hours for a ten-dollar pair of trousers; one hundred sixty hours for an eight-dollar shirt; sixty hours for a three-dollar pair of panties and fifty hours for a $2.50 bra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to take a minute to dwell on that bit of intelectual dishonesty.
> 
> Before the Cuban Revolution, Japan looked like THIS...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we had bombed the SHIT out of it.  Besides the fact I kind of doubt your figures, I think the very fact you cherry picked that comparison speaks volumes.
> 
> And again, the reason why life in Cuba is so miserable is because we've been spending 50 years economically punishing them for rejecting us.
> 
> It's like saying you ex-girlfriend is a loser after you slashed her tires, called her boss and said she had AIDS, and burned down her house.
> 
> Sick.
Click to expand...


Marxist Joe making excuses for Marxisms failures since 1917


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> *Castro's victims*
> 
> Experts estimate that about 100,000 people have died as a result of Fidel Castro's revolution.
> BY FRANCES ROBLES
> 
> More than 4,000 were killed by Fidel Castro's firing squads. Many others lost their lives fighting for and against him. Some drowned trying to leave Cuba.
> 
> The exact body count is elusive, but experts who keep track of those killed as a result of Castro's revolution know this much: During his nearly five decades in power, the toll kept mounting.
> 
> Armando Lago, a Cuban exile and economist who made a personal quest of counting the people who lost their lives as a direct consequence of Castro, estimates the total at well over 100,000.
> 
> His latest update on Dec. 31 2007 showed 4,074 people were killed by Castro's firing squads and 1,334 were the victims of extrajudicial killings. Another 16,282 died in combat, fighting both for and against Castro, both in Cuba and in places abroad like Angola.
> 
> *The bulk of the other deaths will likely never be proven: he used a a mathematical formula based on U.S. Coast Guard and other figures to estimate that 77,833 would-be migrants drowned at sea.*
> 
> "I am doing something for the history of Cuba," Lago said in a 2006 interview. îîI am making it my task to let the world know about this."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]
Click to expand...


So essentially, the only way you get to 100K (which is really a pretty small number for a civil war) is to make numbers up. 

THis is about as intellectually dishonest as the Lancet "Estimating" we killed a Million Iraqis by blaming us for every statistical death in Iraq since 2003.  

Those people who were killed in the revolution were the ones who supported Batista as he let Corporations and Gangsters (but I repeat myself) rape the country.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist Joe making excuses for Marxisms failures since 1917



The only "Failure" that bothers me is the Failure of Corporatism in 2008, where I lost tens of thousands of dollars in my property and asset values.... 

And the people who caused it got bailouts I paid for.


----------



## JoeB131

The reality about Batista...

#50 truths about the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in #Cuba (#USA #Portugal #Colombia #Ecuador #Venezuela #France #UK #Puerto Rico #South Africa). | Cuba Inside The World

12. In July 1952, Washington signed military agreements with Havana, but was aware of the brutal and arbitrary nature of the new power. Cuba is &#8220;under the yoke of a merciless dictator,&#8221; the U.S. embassy said in a confidential report January 1953 bound to the State Department. Indeed, General with an iron hand repressed the opposition, particularly the student youth symbolized by the murder of the young Ruben Batista in January 1953.

13. The July 26, 1953, a young lawyer named Fidel Castro led an armed expedition against the Moncada barracks, the country&#8217;s second military fortress. It was a bloody failure. The U.S. consulate in Santiago de Cuba noted that &#8220;the Army made no distinction between simple captured or suspected insurgents,&#8221; recognizing the massacres committed by the soldiers after receiving orders from Colonel Alberto del Rio Chaviano. He also emphasized &#8220;the very low number of casualties among the insurgents on the number of wounded soldiers. [...]. The attackers captured were executed in cold blood and wounded robbers were also liquidated. &#8220;

14. In November 1954, organized a parody Batista won election without difficulty. United States recognized that &#8220;the elections were a sham Batista foresaw intended to cling to power.&#8221;

21. Batista ferocious violence exercised towards the opposition. But the United States was discreet about the crimes he committed his Cuban ally. However, the U.S. embassy in Havana multiplied the reports on this subject: &#8220;We are now convinced that the recurring murders of people whom the government describes as opponents and terrorists are actually the work of the police and army. The official explanation is that men were killed by other opponents. However, the legal attaché received indirect confessions of guilt in police circles, as well as evidence of the responsibility of the police. &#8220;

22. Wayne S. Smith, a young American embassy official, was shocked by the massacres committed by the security forces. He described scenes of horror: &#8220;The police reacted so excessive pressure from the insurgents, torturing and killing hundreds of people, both the innocent and the guilty. Bodies were abandoned, hanged on trees, on the roads. Such tactics led inexorably to the public to refuse to Batista and support the opposition. &#8220;

30. The September 29, 1957, the Medical College of Cuba issued a report on the Cuban political situation during the XI General Assembly of the World Medical Association.According to him, &#8220;the armed struggle fighters who surrender are liquidated. No prisoners, only dead. Many opponents are not before the Court of Justice but executed with a shot to the neck or hanged. They intimidate judges and judges without protest voices are heard.The hopelessness is spreading among young people who blow themselves up in an unequal struggle. He who is haunted not find shelter. Embassy of Haiti In ten asylum seekers were killed by the security forces [...]. The press is totally censored. Non-news reporting, even by international agencies [...]. In the premises of the repressive forces of the police and army, torturing prisoners to extract confessions by force of alleged crimes.Several injuries present at clinics and hospitals were taken by force and appeared several hours later killed in the cities and in the countryside. &#8220; The Washington Post and Times Herald noted that &#8220;the Cuban doctors are victims of atrocities, including killing Cuban rebels cure&#8221;.

34. Batista was intimately linked to gangsterism elements such as Meyer Lansky and Trafficante Jr. Luigi His first contacts with the Mafia dating back to 1933 when he proclaimed he was approached colonel and Charles &#8220;Lucky&#8221; Luciano and Santo Trafficante senior. The game world, highly lucrative, was controlled by Lansky, number two in the American mafia, &#8216;major U.S. gangsters &#8220;who&#8221; had created for the dictator Batista current organization of the games in Havana &#8221; according to the French newspaper Le Monde.


----------



## JoeB131

Oh, and for the idiot who tried to claim Cuba was richer than JAPAN in the Batista years...


35. United States and supporters of the old regime still present Batista&#8217;s Cuba as &#8220;the showcase of Latin America&#8221; &#8203;&#8203;at the time. The reality is slightly different. The statistics of the National Bank of Cuba are available for this period and it is possible to compare the economic situation under the democratic government of President Carlos Prio and under the military regime of Batista. Thus, between 1951 and 1952, Cuba&#8217;s GDP increased by 2.52%. From 1952-1953, under Batista, GDP fell 11.41%, with a rise of only 0.9 of 1953-1954, and 3.5 in 1954-1955. Only in 1956, GDP again reached its 1952 level of 2460.2 million. Thus, it is impossible to speak of economic growth between 1952 and 1956. For two thirds of the reign of Batista no growth. The improvement occurred only after 1957 when the GDP amounted to 2803.3 million in 1958 and then fell back to 2678.9 million.

36. In addition, monetary reserves fell from 448 million pesos in 1952 to 373 million in 1958, which were stolen during the flight of Batista and his accomplices January 1, 1959. The nation&#8217;s debt increased from $ 300 million in March 1952-1300 million in January 1959 and the budget deficit reached 800 million.

37. Batista sugar policy was a failure. While this sector generated income up to 623 million pesos in 1952, fell to 383.5 million in 1953, 412.8 million in 1954, 402.1 million in 1955, 426.1 million in 1956 and 520.7 million in 1958. 1957 Only income generated over 1952 with 630.8 million pesos.

38. The workers and agricultural workers paid the price. While his compensation amounted to 224.9 million pesos in 1952, fell to 127.7 million in 1953, 128.2 million in 1954, 118.9 million in 1955, 127 million in 1956, 175.3 million in 1957 and 156.9 million in 1958. During the Batista regime never had 1952 revenue. The same happened with the non-agricultural workers and employees. While his overall income was 186.6 million pesos in 1952, fell to 126.2 million in 1953, 123.5 million in 1954, 112.7 million in 1955, 114.6 million in 1956, 145.7 million in 1957 and 141.8 million in 1958. Under Batista laborers and nonfarm employees never reached their 1952 income level.


----------



## JoeB131

And what was life like for average Cubans? 

42. About 60% of farmers living in thatched roof huts with dirt floors devoid of toilets or running water. About 90% had no electricity. About 85% of these barracks had one or two pieces for the whole family. Only 11% of farmers consumed milk, 4% 2% meat and eggs. The 43% were illiterate and 44% had never been to school. The New York Times notes that &#8220;the vast majority of them in areas rulares-peasants or peasants lived in poverty, subsistence level&#8221;.

43. According to the English economist Dudley Seers, in 1958 the situation was &#8220;intolerable.&#8221;What was intolerable was an unemployment rate three times higher than in the United States. Moreover, in the field, social conditions were very bad. About a third of the nation lived in the dirt, eating rice, beans, plantains and vegetables (almost never meat, fish, eggs or milk), living in barracks, usually without electricity or latrines, victim of parasitic diseases and did not benefit of a health service. Instruction is denied (their children went to school one year maximum). The situation of precarious, temporary barracks installed in the commons, was particularly difficult [...]. A significant proportion of the urban population was also very miserable. &#8220;

44. President John F. Kennedy also said this: &#8220;I think there is no country in the world, including the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than they were in Cuba, due to the policy of my country during the Batista regime. We refuse to help Cuba in desperate need of economic progress. In 1953, the median Cuban family had an income of $ 6 per week [...]. This abysmal level worsened as the population grew. But instead of extending a friendly hand to the desperate people of Cuba, almost all our help took the form of military assistance assistance simply strengthened the Batista dictatorship [generating] a growing feeling that America was indifferent to Cuban aspirations to a decent life. &#8220;

45. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., President Kennedey personal adviser, recalled a stay in Havana and testified: &#8220;I loved Havana and I was shocked how this lovely city had become regrettably in a large casino and brothel for men American business [...]. My fellow walked the streets, went with Cuban girls fourteen and threw coins just for the pleasure of seeing men wallowing in the sewer and collect. One wondered how the Cubans &#8211; seeing this reality &#8211; the U.S. could be considered otherwise than with hatred. &#8220;


----------



## Toro

Cuba and Chile had roughly the same standard of living in 1960. 

Today, Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America while Cubans risk their lives to cross 100 miles of shark infested waters in dingies because the Workers Paradise won't let them leave.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Cuba and Chile had roughly the same standard of living in 1960.
> 
> Today, Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America while Cubans risk their lives to cross 100 miles of shark infested waters in dingies because the Workers Paradise won't let them leave.



Being the most prosperous nation in SOuth America is kind of like being the Leper with the Most Fingers.  

But let's look at Chile. Chile tried to fairly distribute the wealth, and guess  what, we killed their leader for it and imposed a 20 year military dictatorship on them. 

But it's a good time for the 1%ers down there, until the people get sick of their shit and kill them.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist Joe making excuses for Marxisms failures since 1917
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "Failure" that bothers me is the Failure of Corporatism in 2008, where I lost tens of thousands of dollars in my property and asset values....
> 
> And the people who caused it got bailouts I paid for.
Click to expand...


Poor Joe. 

He lost money. 

People should have a right that their house price always goes up!  Why didn't the 18th century slave-rapists put that in the Constitution?

I feel bad. 

Life's not fair.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist Joe making excuses for Marxisms failures since 1917
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "Failure" that bothers me is the Failure of Corporatism in 2008, where I lost tens of thousands of dollars in my property and asset values....
> 
> And the people who caused it got bailouts I paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Joe.
> 
> He lost money.
> 
> People should have a right that their house price always goes up!  Why didn't the 18th century slave-rapists put that in the Constitution?
> 
> I feel bad.
> 
> Life's not fair.
Click to expand...


No, but the people who manipulatd the markets and wrecked the economy need to go to big boy jail.  

Not get bonuses.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> Cuba and Chile had roughly the same standard of living in 1960.
> 
> Today, Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America while Cubans risk their lives to cross 100 miles of shark infested waters in dingies because the Workers Paradise won't let them leave.



JoeB is going to borrow an inner tube from one of those refugees and head TOWARD Fidel and Paradise


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba and Chile had roughly the same standard of living in 1960.
> 
> Today, Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America while Cubans risk their lives to cross 100 miles of shark infested waters in dingies because the Workers Paradise won't let them leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being the most prosperous nation in SOuth America is kind of like being the Leper with the Most Fingers.
> 
> But let's look at Chile. Chile tried to fairly distribute the wealth, and guess  what, we killed their leader for it and imposed a 20 year military dictatorship on them.
> 
> But it's a good time for the 1%ers down there, until the people get sick of their shit and kill them.
Click to expand...


There's a thriving middle class in Chile. 

There is no middle class in Cuba. 

But they do drive around in 1940s vintage cars in Cuba, so there's that. 

Plus, the Canadian and European tourists donate their half empty bottles of aspirins to the local hospitals. 

It's a Workers Paradise!


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "Failure" that bothers me is the Failure of Corporatism in 2008, where I lost tens of thousands of dollars in my property and asset values....
> 
> And the people who caused it got bailouts I paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Joe.
> 
> He lost money.
> 
> People should have a right that their house price always goes up!  Why didn't the 18th century slave-rapists put that in the Constitution?
> 
> I feel bad.
> 
> Life's not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but the people who manipulatd the markets and wrecked the economy need to go to big boy jail.
> 
> Not get bonuses.
Click to expand...


But that's not happening. 

Sorry life wound up being so shitty for you.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba and Chile had roughly the same standard of living in 1960.
> 
> Today, Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America while Cubans risk their lives to cross 100 miles of shark infested waters in dingies because the Workers Paradise won't let them leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being the most prosperous nation in SOuth America is kind of like being the Leper with the Most Fingers.
> 
> But let's look at Chile. Chile tried to fairly distribute the wealth, and guess  what, we killed their leader for it and imposed a 20 year military dictatorship on them.
> 
> But it's a good time for the 1%ers down there, until the people get sick of their shit and kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a thriving middle class in Chile.
> 
> There is no middle class in Cuba.
> 
> But they do drive around in 1940s vintage cars in Cuba, so there's that.
> 
> Plus, the Canadian and European tourists donate their half empty bottles of aspirins to the local hospitals.
> 
> It's a Workers Paradise!
Click to expand...


Again, Cuba is in such bad shape because we've been waging a 50 year economic war against them.  

Which is why the British company I work for won't sell to Cuba if it still wants to do business in the US.  

It seems to me that the wealthy are punishing Cubans for just not putting up with it anymore.


----------



## editec

Dropped in to see how the REAGAN revisionism is going.

We've migrated to speaking in vague generalities about Cuba, eh?


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the most prosperous nation in SOuth America is kind of like being the Leper with the Most Fingers.
> 
> But let's look at Chile. Chile tried to fairly distribute the wealth, and guess  what, we killed their leader for it and imposed a 20 year military dictatorship on them.
> 
> But it's a good time for the 1%ers down there, until the people get sick of their shit and kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thriving middle class in Chile.
> 
> There is no middle class in Cuba.
> 
> But they do drive around in 1940s vintage cars in Cuba, so there's that.
> 
> Plus, the Canadian and European tourists donate their half empty bottles of aspirins to the local hospitals.
> 
> It's a Workers Paradise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Cuba is in such bad shape because we've been waging a 50 year economic war against them.
> 
> Which is why the British company I work for won't sell to Cuba if it still wants to do business in the US.
> 
> It seems to me that the wealthy are punishing Cubans for just not putting up with it anymore.
Click to expand...


That "trade embargo" excuse is hilarious. 

"Capitalism is evil. And we are poor because the evil capitalists won't do business with us!"

And they say this without even a hint of irony. 

Here's how you can relate to it Joe. Think of the United States as you, Cuba as 12 million Mormons, and Marxism as Mormonism. Mormons, I mean Marxists, were mean to us decades ago, we read their whacky Marxist books and saw their weird Marxist history, and we are still irrationally obsessed with it decades later, so we put them on a blacklist and refuse to do business with them. Just like you!


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> That "trade embargo" excuse is hilarious.
> 
> "Capitalism is evil. And we are poor because the evil capitalists won't do business with us!"
> 
> And they say this without even a hint of irony.
> 
> Here's how you can relate to it Joe. Think of the United States as you, Cuba as 12 million Mormons, and Marxism as Mormonism. Mormons, I mean Marxists, were mean to us decades ago, we read their whacky Marxist books and saw their weird Marxist history, and we are still irrationally obsessed with it decades later, so we put them on a blacklist and refuse to do business with them. Just like you!



Wow, still asshurt because you are upset I won't see a movie with a Mormon in it, eh?  

You do understand that we have been punishing Cuba, right? At first, it was because, hey, they threw in with the Soviets.  I would even go so far to say in 1960, the embargo made sense.  

Today, we are keeping it on because no politician has the balls to say, "This is stupid and mean to still be doing this 20 years after the Cold War ended."  

People realize that Al Gore lost Florida because Bill Clinton did the humane thing and sent Elian back to his father.   And no one wants to cross these people still stewing intheir anger 50 years later.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "trade embargo" excuse is hilarious.
> 
> "Capitalism is evil. And we are poor because the evil capitalists won't do business with us!"
> 
> And they say this without even a hint of irony.
> 
> Here's how you can relate to it Joe. Think of the United States as you, Cuba as 12 million Mormons, and Marxism as Mormonism. Mormons, I mean Marxists, were mean to us decades ago, we read their whacky Marxist books and saw their weird Marxist history, and we are still irrationally obsessed with it decades later, so we put them on a blacklist and refuse to do business with them. Just like you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, still asshurt because you are upset I won't see a movie with a Mormon in it, eh?
> 
> You do understand that we have been punishing Cuba, right? At first, it was because, hey, they threw in with the Soviets.  I would even go so far to say in 1960, the embargo made sense.
> 
> Today, we are keeping it on because no politician has the balls to say, "This is stupid and mean to still be doing this 20 years after the Cold War ended."
> 
> People realize that Al Gore lost Florida because Bill Clinton did the humane thing and sent Elian back to his father.   And no one wants to cross these people still stewing intheir anger 50 years later.
Click to expand...


The trade embargo is stupid. 

Just like your "Mormon embargo."


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "trade embargo" excuse is hilarious.
> 
> "Capitalism is evil. And we are poor because the evil capitalists won't do business with us!"
> 
> And they say this without even a hint of irony.
> 
> Here's how you can relate to it Joe. Think of the United States as you, Cuba as 12 million Mormons, and Marxism as Mormonism. Mormons, I mean Marxists, were mean to us decades ago, we read their whacky Marxist books and saw their weird Marxist history, and we are still irrationally obsessed with it decades later, so we put them on a blacklist and refuse to do business with them. Just like you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, still asshurt because you are upset I won't see a movie with a Mormon in it, eh?
> 
> You do understand that we have been punishing Cuba, right? At first, it was because, hey, they threw in with the Soviets.  I would even go so far to say in 1960, the embargo made sense.
> 
> Today, we are keeping it on because no politician has the balls to say, "This is stupid and mean to still be doing this 20 years after the Cold War ended."
> 
> People realize that Al Gore lost Florida because Bill Clinton did the humane thing and sent Elian back to his father.   And no one wants to cross these people still stewing intheir anger 50 years later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trade embargo is stupid.
> 
> Just like your "Mormon embargo."
Click to expand...


I don't do business with people I don't trust.   Sorry.  No second chances.  You burn me once, I never give you a second chance to do it.  

Which has nothing to do with our Trade Embargo, which is more about politics in Florida.  

If we lifted the embargo back in the 1990's, we'd have probably gotten rid of the Castros a long time ago.


----------



## JoeB131

And, Toro, can we just agree to disagree about the Mormon thing, because, honestly, I'm really, really getting tired of every discussion with you circling back to "but you're a big meanyhead to Mormons".  

I don't like them. I have good reasons not to like them. Deal with it.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, still asshurt because you are upset I won't see a movie with a Mormon in it, eh?
> 
> You do understand that we have been punishing Cuba, right? At first, it was because, hey, they threw in with the Soviets.  I would even go so far to say in 1960, the embargo made sense.
> 
> Today, we are keeping it on because no politician has the balls to say, "This is stupid and mean to still be doing this 20 years after the Cold War ended."
> 
> People realize that Al Gore lost Florida because Bill Clinton did the humane thing and sent Elian back to his father.   And no one wants to cross these people still stewing intheir anger 50 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trade embargo is stupid.
> 
> Just like your "Mormon embargo."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't do business with people I don't trust.   Sorry.  No second chances.  You burn me once, I never give you a second chance to do it.
> .
Click to expand...


I don't do business with people I don't trust either. I just don't distrust 12 million people because a few of them burned me. 

"You're Jewish?  Sorry. Won't do business with you. I mean, I know absolutely nothing about you personally, but 2000 years ago, you people forsook Jesus.  That means you are a liar and a thief.  So we can't do business. 

But don't tell my boss, OK?"


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> And, Toro, can we just agree to disagree about the Mormon thing, because, honestly, I'm really, really getting tired of every discussion with you circling back to "but you're a big meanyhead to Mormons".
> 
> I don't like them. I have good reasons not to like them. Deal with it.



No. 

Plus, I thought you could relate to the analogy.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [
> 
> I don't do business with people I don't trust either. I just don't distrust 12 million people because a few of them burned me.
> 
> "You're Jewish?  Sorry. Won't do business with you. I mean, I know absolutely nothing about you personally, but 2000 years ago, you people forsook Jesus.  That means you are a liar and a thief.  So we can't do business.
> 
> But don't tell my boss, OK?"




If all 12 million of them are in the same insane cult and think their prophet is talking to God, that's probably a good reason to not trust them.  

You do understand there's a difference between a religion and a cult, don't you. 

Mormonism is a cult.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, Toro, can we just agree to disagree about the Mormon thing, because, honestly, I'm really, really getting tired of every discussion with you circling back to "but you're a big meanyhead to Mormons".
> 
> I don't like them. I have good reasons not to like them. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Plus, I thought you could relate to the analogy.
Click to expand...


No, not really even a good analogy.  

The Cuban people weren't the party in teh wrong, we were. 

Even JFK admitted as much.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba and Chile had roughly the same standard of living in 1960.
> 
> Today, Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America while Cubans risk their lives to cross 100 miles of shark infested waters in dingies because the Workers Paradise won't let them leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being the most prosperous nation in SOuth America is kind of like being the Leper with the Most Fingers.
> 
> But let's look at Chile. *Chile tried to fairly distribute the wealth*, and guess  what, we killed their leader for it and imposed a 20 year military dictatorship on them.
> 
> But it's a good time for the 1%ers down there, until the people get sick of their shit and kill them.
Click to expand...



Joe wants to be in charge of "fairly distributing the wealth"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being the most prosperous nation in SOuth America is kind of like being the Leper with the Most Fingers.
> 
> But let's look at Chile. Chile tried to fairly distribute the wealth, and guess  what, we killed their leader for it and imposed a 20 year military dictatorship on them.
> 
> But it's a good time for the 1%ers down there, until the people get sick of their shit and kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thriving middle class in Chile.
> 
> There is no middle class in Cuba.
> 
> But they do drive around in 1940s vintage cars in Cuba, so there's that.
> 
> Plus, the Canadian and European tourists donate their half empty bottles of aspirins to the local hospitals.
> 
> It's a Workers Paradise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Cuba is in such bad shape because we've been waging a 50 year economic war against them.
> 
> Which is why the British company I work for won't sell to Cuba if it still wants to do business in the US.
> 
> It seems to me that the wealthy are punishing Cubans for just not putting up with it anymore.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's not there's never been a single thriving Marxist economy in human history, it's cause we're mean to Fidel


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a thriving middle class in Chile.
> 
> There is no middle class in Cuba.
> 
> But they do drive around in 1940s vintage cars in Cuba, so there's that.
> 
> Plus, the Canadian and European tourists donate their half empty bottles of aspirins to the local hospitals.
> 
> It's a Workers Paradise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Cuba is in such bad shape because we've been waging a 50 year economic war against them.
> 
> Which is why the British company I work for won't sell to Cuba if it still wants to do business in the US.
> 
> It seems to me that the wealthy are punishing Cubans for just not putting up with it anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not there's never been a single thriving Marxist economy in human history, it's cause we're mean to Fidel
Click to expand...


Depends what you mean by "Thriving".  

Cuba was better off under Fidel than Batista (except for the rich). 

China is better off now than it was under the Warlords and Nationalists. 

The USSR was better than life under the Tsars...


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Cuba is in such bad shape because we've been waging a 50 year economic war against them.
> 
> Which is why the British company I work for won't sell to Cuba if it still wants to do business in the US.
> 
> It seems to me that the wealthy are punishing Cubans for just not putting up with it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not there's never been a single thriving Marxist economy in human history, it's cause we're mean to Fidel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by "Thriving".
> 
> Cuba was better off under Fidel than Batista (except for the rich).
> 
> China is better off now than it was under the Warlords and Nationalists.
> 
> The USSR was better than life under the Tsars...
Click to expand...


Your a idiot


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Cuba is in such bad shape because we've been waging a 50 year economic war against them.
> 
> Which is why the British company I work for won't sell to Cuba if it still wants to do business in the US.
> 
> It seems to me that the wealthy are punishing Cubans for just not putting up with it anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not there's never been a single thriving Marxist economy in human history, it's cause we're mean to Fidel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by "Thriving".
> 
> Cuba was better off under Fidel than Batista (except for the rich).
> 
> China is better off now than it was under the Warlords and Nationalists.
> 
> The USSR was better than life under the Tsars...
Click to expand...


How to prove in one post that you don't know dick about Cuba or the USSR


----------



## Dot Com

Stop living that rw fantasy Frank.  Reagan was no angel.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist Joe making excuses for Marxisms failures since 1917
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "Failure" that bothers me is the Failure of Corporatism in 2008, where I lost tens of thousands of dollars in my property and asset values....
> 
> And the people who caused it got bailouts I paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor Joe.
> 
> He lost money.
> 
> People should have a right that their house price always goes up!  Why didn't the 18th century slave-rapists put that in the Constitution?
> 
> I feel bad.
> 
> Life's not fair.
Click to expand...


Well, the good news is if his side wins, he won't be allowed to own anything


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "Failure" that bothers me is the Failure of Corporatism in 2008, where I lost tens of thousands of dollars in my property and asset values....
> 
> And the people who caused it got bailouts I paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Joe.
> 
> He lost money.
> 
> People should have a right that their house price always goes up!  Why didn't the 18th century slave-rapists put that in the Constitution?
> 
> I feel bad.
> 
> Life's not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but the people who manipulatd the markets and wrecked the economy need to go to big boy jail.
> 
> Not get bonuses.
Click to expand...


BINGO!!!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, despite our bad behavior, Cubans live far better today than they did under our puppet Batista.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Joe...you show yourself to be utterly CLUELESS about Cuba.  *Before the revolution Cuba's GDP was higher than Japan's and the average Cuban was far better off economically than they are now.  *When the Soviet Union collapsed and billions in subsidies stopped coming to Cuba the GDP in Cuba fell by almost a third.
> 
> "Today the Cuban worker's average monthly salary is 203 Cuban pesos-around $9.25. That means an average hourly wage of five cents. A Cuban worker has to toil twenty-six hours for a can of evaporated milk ($1.30); seven hours for an ounce of coffee ($0.33); forty-four hours for a tube of toothpaste ($2.20); two hundred hours for a ten-dollar pair of trousers; one hundred sixty hours for an eight-dollar shirt; sixty hours for a three-dollar pair of panties and fifty hours for a $2.50 bra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to take a minute to dwell on that bit of intelectual dishonesty.
> 
> Before the Cuban Revolution, Japan looked like THIS...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we had bombed the SHIT out of it.  Besides the fact I kind of doubt your figures, I think the very fact you cherry picked that comparison speaks volumes.
> 
> And again, the reason why life in Cuba is so miserable is because we've been spending 50 years economically punishing them for rejecting us.
> 
> It's like saying you ex-girlfriend is a loser after you slashed her tires, called her boss and said she had AIDS, and burned down her house.
> 
> Sick.
Click to expand...


Jesus, Joe...just when I thought you were clueless about Cuba...you come roaring back to prove that you're even MORE clueless about Japan!  By the mid 50's, Japan was already back to it's pre-war production levels.  That's what Cuba at the time of Battista is being compared to...not some bombed out shell of a country.  We studied Japan's economy following WWII in college *because* it recovered so dramatically.

I'm curious, Joe...where is it that you're getting your "take" on places like Cuba?  I ask that because it's SO off the charts wrong that I'd like to know if it's just you not knowing about the country or some stupid left wing site that's pushing this nonsense.  

I noted that you posted a rather lengthy bit of information that you obviously got from *somewhere* but you didn't attribute it's source so I'm guessing it's someplace you're not proud of?


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's not there's never been a single thriving Marxist economy in human history, it's cause we're mean to Fidel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by "Thriving".
> 
> Cuba was better off under Fidel than Batista (except for the rich).
> 
> China is better off now than it was under the Warlords and Nationalists.
> 
> The USSR was better than life under the Tsars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your a idiot
Click to expand...


I'd be more impressed with your arguments if you understood the difference between "your" and "you're".


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Jesus, Joe...just when I thought you were clueless about Cuba...you come roaring back to prove that you're even MORE clueless about Japan!  By the mid 50's, Japan was already back to it's pre-war production levels.  That's what Cuba at the time of Battista is being compared to...not some bombed out shell of a country.  We studied Japan's economy following WWII in college *because* it recovered so dramatically.
> 
> I'm curious, Joe...where is it that you're getting your "take" on places like Cuba?  I ask that because it's SO off the charts wrong that I'd like to know if it's just you not knowing about the country or some stupid left wing site that's pushing this nonsense.
> 
> I noted that you posted a rather lengthy bit of information that you obviously got from *somewhere* but you didn't attribute it's source so I'm guessing it's someplace you're not proud of?



Guy, in the 1950's Japan was pretty much a third world country.   It was kind of what China was like in the 1990's, known for cheap, knock off stuff you buy in a dime store.  They had nowhere near cleaned up the mess.  

Batista was a cocksucker and his people hated him, and even our own offiicials, including JFK, admitted it was a HUGE mistake to support him as long as we did. 

Oh, bugwit, the parts bout your boy batista were linked in the first post.  Learn to fucking read, you moron.  Because I'm honestly tired of wasting time on you. 

There's a reason why Americans are called "Gringos" and hated in most of Latin America.  It's because we pull shit like this.


----------



## thanatos144

Progressives and libertarians are jealous that neither one of them had a president as good as Ronald Reagan


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Jesus, Joe...just when I thought you were clueless about Cuba...you come roaring back to prove that you're even MORE clueless about Japan!  By the mid 50's, Japan was already back to it's pre-war production levels.  That's what Cuba at the time of Battista is being compared to...not some bombed out shell of a country.  We studied Japan's economy following WWII in college *because* it recovered so dramatically.
> 
> I'm curious, Joe...where is it that you're getting your "take" on places like Cuba?  I ask that because it's SO off the charts wrong that I'd like to know if it's just you not knowing about the country or some stupid left wing site that's pushing this nonsense.
> 
> I noted that you posted a rather lengthy bit of information that you obviously got from *somewhere* but you didn't attribute it's source so I'm guessing it's someplace you're not proud of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, in the 1950's Japan was pretty much a third world country.   It was kind of what China was like in the 1990's, known for cheap, knock off stuff you buy in a dime store.  They had nowhere near cleaned up the mess.
> 
> Batista was a cocksucker and his people hated him, and even our own offiicials, including JFK, admitted it was a HUGE mistake to support him as long as we did.
> 
> Oh, bugwit, the parts bout your boy batista were linked in the first post.  Learn to fucking read, you moron.  Because I'm honestly tired of wasting time on you.
> 
> There's a reason why Americans are called "Gringos" and hated in most of Latin America.  It's because we pull shit like this.
Click to expand...


Before you make anymore absurd statements about Japan?  Why don't you read up on it's recovery?  The combination of having about a billion and a half dollars pumped into it's economy by us coupled with the fact that it wasn't allowed to put any money into it's military led to Japan having one of the most modern industrial infrastructures in the world.  It's something that happened at an incredible rate due in large part to Japan's rather unique position of having trade with both sides of the "Cold War" at a time when most countries did not.  Japan was exporting so much stuff (just like China now) that their economy was booming.  THAT is not a Third World Country situation.

As for Kennedy's attitude about Cuba?  Funny how the very same Mafia thugs that JFK used to steal the election to MAKE him President were the ones that were so instrumental in turning Cuba into the corrupt nation it became in the 1950's.  Battista isn't "my boy".  He was one more dictator who took power by force and abused his people.  He SHOULD have been overthrown by the people and he was.  The problem is that the person who replaced him was even worse than Battista was.  It's the exact same thing that happened in Russia when the Czar was overthrown by the people.  Stalin consolidates power and becomes far worse than the Czar ever was.  What the Cuban people needed were democratically elected leaders.  What they got was another dictator.


----------



## Oldstyle

And I note that you once again don't seem to want to attribute the site of the posts you cut and pasted from somewhere, Joe.  Was it THAT bad of a source?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

EDIT OUT,same post in next post just a lillte longer.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Jesus, Joe...just when I thought you were clueless about Cuba...you come roaring back to prove that you're even MORE clueless about Japan!  By the mid 50's, Japan was already back to it's pre-war production levels.  That's what Cuba at the time of Battista is being compared to...not some bombed out shell of a country.  We studied Japan's economy following WWII in college *because* it recovered so dramatically.
> 
> I'm curious, Joe...where is it that you're getting your "take" on places like Cuba?  I ask that because it's SO off the charts wrong that I'd like to know if it's just you not knowing about the country or some stupid left wing site that's pushing this nonsense.
> 
> I noted that you posted a rather lengthy bit of information that you obviously got from *somewhere* but you didn't attribute it's source so I'm guessing it's someplace you're not proud of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, in the 1950's Japan was pretty much a third world country.   It was kind of what China was like in the 1990's, known for cheap, knock off stuff you buy in a dime store.  They had nowhere near cleaned up the mess.
> 
> Batista was a cocksucker and his people hated him, and even our own offiicials, including JFK, admitted it was a HUGE mistake to support him as long as we did.
> 
> Oh, bugwit, the parts bout your boy batista were linked in the first post.  Learn to fucking read, you moron.  Because I'm honestly tired of wasting time on you.
> 
> There's a reason why Americans are called "Gringos" and hated in most of Latin America.  It's because we pull shit like this.
Click to expand...


You're discovering the same thing I did when I tried to have a rational discussion with him.He has reading comprehension problems.a familiar trait among the Reaganuts.

Anytime you post links to him exposing the corruption that went on during Reagans adminsitration,he dismisses it calling it a cut and paste job even though the links you give him are from ACTUAL news broadcasts from the 80's exposing how Reagans policys benefittted only the rich but hurt the poor. He runs off with his tail between his legs changing the subject and evading the facts acting like you never posted those actual live broadcasts from the 80's.

 He is a cowardly total hypocrite troll.Thats all his fellow trolls do is post cut and past jobs yet like the hypocrite he is,he pats them on the back.He sees things that arent there as well saying you  posted something you never posted.

Then when you tell him that he has been brainwashed and taken in by the myth of reagan by the CIA comtrolled media,he then laughs at you for saying the media is controlled by them even though you show him a video of congress having a hearing about it exposing it back then and of course he acts like you never posted the video and plays dodgeball with it evading the facts since it proves him wrong so he changes the subject.Ignoring facts like Harry Truman regretted the fact that he created the CIA.

you found out what everyone does that trys to have a rational discussion with him,that you cant,that its a complete waste of time.same with all the reagnuts.they are just here to troll.I discovered that several pages back the hypocrite is a complete waste of time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by "Thriving".
> 
> Cuba was better off under Fidel than Batista (except for the rich).
> 
> China is better off now than it was under the Warlords and Nationalists.
> 
> The USSR was better than life under the Tsars...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your a idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be more impressed with your arguments if you understood the difference between "your" and "you're".
Click to expand...


I personally would be alot more impressed with Crusader Retard and the other reaganut trolls arguments if they would actually watch videos you post to them  that expose reagans corruption commenting on what they talked about in the videos  instead of being a chickenshit coward cowardly running off from them evading the facts and changing the subject.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


great unintentional thread


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> Stop living that rw fantasy Frank.  Reagan was no angel.



Crusader Retard wants to live in denial that Reagan  was no different than any of the other presidents we have had since Hoover.All of them being evil corrupt bastards the likes of Hitler,Stalin,pol pot,ect ect,with the exception of one who's name i wont mention since they already know who it is im talking about.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> Dropped in to see how the REAGAN revisionism is going.
> 
> We've migrated to speaking in vague generalities about Cuba, eh?



apparently about Mormons as well.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Jesus, Joe...just when I thought you were clueless about Cuba...you come roaring back to prove that you're even MORE clueless about Japan!  By the mid 50's, Japan was already back to it's pre-war production levels.  That's what Cuba at the time of Battista is being compared to...not some bombed out shell of a country.  We studied Japan's economy following WWII in college *because* it recovered so dramatically.
> 
> I'm curious, Joe...where is it that you're getting your "take" on places like Cuba?  I ask that because it's SO off the charts wrong that I'd like to know if it's just you not knowing about the country or some stupid left wing site that's pushing this nonsense.
> 
> I noted that you posted a rather lengthy bit of information that you obviously got from *somewhere* but you didn't attribute it's source so I'm guessing it's someplace you're not proud of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, in the 1950's Japan was pretty much a third world country.   It was kind of what China was like in the 1990's, known for cheap, knock off stuff you buy in a dime store.  They had nowhere near cleaned up the mess.
> 
> Batista was a cocksucker and his people hated him, and even our own offiicials, including JFK, admitted it was a HUGE mistake to support him as long as we did.
> 
> Oh, bugwit, the parts bout your boy batista were linked in the first post.  Learn to fucking read, you moron.  Because I'm honestly tired of wasting time on you.
> 
> There's a reason why Americans are called "Gringos" and hated in most of Latin America.  It's because we pull shit like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're discovering the same thing I did when I tried to have a rational discussion with him.He has reading comprehension problems.a familiar trait among the Reaganuts.
> 
> Anytime you post links to him exposing the corruption that went on during Reagans adminsitration,he dismisses it calling it a cut and paste job even though the links you give him are from ACTUAL news broadcasts from the 80's exposing how Reagans policys benefittted only the rich but hurt the poor. He runs off with his tail between his legs changing the subject and evading the facts acting like you never posted those actual live broadcasts from the 80's.
> 
> He is a cowardly total hypocrite troll.Thats all his fellow trolls do is post cut and past jobs yet like the hypocrite he is,he pats them on the back.He sees things that arent there as well saying you  posted something you never posted.
> 
> Then when you tell him that he has been brainwashed and taken in by the myth of reagan by the CIA comtrolled media,he then laughs at you for saying the media is controlled by them even though you show him a video of congress having a hearing about it exposing it back then and of course he acts like you never posted the video and plays dodgeball with it evading the facts since it proves him wrong so he changes the subject.Ignoring facts like Harry Truman regretted the fact that he created the CIA.
> 
> you found out what everyone does that trys to have a rational discussion with him,that you cant,that its a complete waste of time.same with all the reagnuts.they are just here to troll.I discovered that several pages back the hypocrite is a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...


In order to have "rational" discussion, 9/11...first you have to start with two rational people.  You don't fit that description unfortunately.  You're one of those conspiracy nuts that wears tin foil hats and babbles about fake planes flying into the towers.

Joe thinks Castro and communism have been an improvement for the Cuban people.  I've actually visited Cuba and know about the conditions that the people there live under.  To say that it sucks would be an understatement.  Was Battista a thug?  Yes he was!  But to try and paint Fidel Castro as any less of a thug is laughable.  It's like saying that Stalin was better for the Russian people than Czar Nicolas II.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

translation of  oldstlyes last post-yeah 9/11 you're right.I have lauhgable debating skills and like you have said before,I would be laughed out of a debating hall withing a minute if i debated there the same way I do here cowardly running away from links and videos like i do never addressing them because it proves I am too arrogant to admit when I am wrong.I am too afraid to admit i have been conditioned and brainwashed my whole life so I live in denial about Reagan only seeing what I want to see just like you have said before.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

EDIT OUT,double post.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> translation fo oldstlyes last post-yeah 9/11 you're right.I have lauhgable debating skills and like you have said before,I would be laughed out of a debating hall withing a minute if i debated there the same way I do here cowardly running away from links and videos like i do never addressing them because it proves I am too arrogant to admit when I am wrong.



LOL...you post this:

"someone farted in here."

And then declare that "I" have laughable debating skills?  Seriously?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## Oldstyle

You are the very definition of "asshat".


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## thanatos144

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.



You make Ron Paul proud, idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Before you make anymore absurd statements about Japan?  Why don't you read up on it's recovery?  The combination of having about a billion and a half dollars pumped into it's economy by us coupled with the fact that it wasn't allowed to put any money into it's military led to Japan having one of the most modern industrial infrastructures in the world.  It's something that happened at an incredible rate due in large part to Japan's rather unique position of having trade with both sides of the "Cold War" at a time when most countries did not.  Japan was exporting so much stuff (just like China now) that their economy was booming.  THAT is not a Third World Country situation.



Actually, Japan did very little trade with China or Russia during the early cold war. What made Japan strong was that it actually followed the kind of FDR economics that the Republicans never let happen in the US.  

Not that you are capable of being educated, but you really need to read up on a fellow named William Deming and his role in Japan's re-industrialization.  When The Japanese were eating our lunches in the 1980's, a whole bunch of Americans were amazed that it was an American who taught them how to do it. 





Oldstyle said:


> [
> As for Kennedy's attitude about Cuba?  Funny how the very same Mafia thugs that JFK used to steal the election to MAKE him President were the ones that were so instrumental in turning Cuba into the corrupt nation it became in the 1950's.  Battista isn't "my boy".  He was one more dictator who took power by force and abused his people.  He SHOULD have been overthrown by the people and he was.  The problem is that the person who replaced him was even worse than Battista was.  It's the exact same thing that happened in Russia when the Czar was overthrown by the people.  Stalin consolidates power and becomes far worse than the Czar ever was.  What the Cuban people needed were democratically elected leaders.  What they got was another dictator.



A wise PolSci professor of mine points out that NO government exists without the tacit acceptence of its people.  

That's why Batista and the Tsar were toppled, but Stalin and persumeably Castro will die peacefully in their beds.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> And I note that you once again don't seem to want to attribute the site of the posts you cut and pasted from somewhere, Joe.  Was it THAT bad of a source?



I do links when I feel like them... when I think the person I am talking to is capable of being educated.  

consider my lack of taking the time to do so a measure of disrespect towards you and your lazy thinking.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I note that you once again don't seem to want to attribute the site of the posts you cut and pasted from somewhere, Joe.  Was it THAT bad of a source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do links when I feel like them... when I think the person I am talking to is capable of being educated.
> 
> consider my lack of taking the time to do so a measure of disrespect towards you and your lazy thinking.
Click to expand...


I consider it to be evidence of your lack of ethics, Joe.  Unless YOU wrote it...you owe whoever DID the respect of crediting them for their work.  That's the kind of thing you learn when you HAVE an education!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Before you make anymore absurd statements about Japan?  Why don't you read up on it's recovery?  The combination of having about a billion and a half dollars pumped into it's economy by us coupled with the fact that it wasn't allowed to put any money into it's military led to Japan having one of the most modern industrial infrastructures in the world.  It's something that happened at an incredible rate due in large part to Japan's rather unique position of having trade with both sides of the "Cold War" at a time when most countries did not.  Japan was exporting so much stuff (just like China now) that their economy was booming.  THAT is not a Third World Country situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan did very little trade with China or Russia during the early cold war. What made Japan strong was that it actually followed the kind of FDR economics that the Republicans never let happen in the US.
> 
> Not that you are capable of being educated, but you really need to read up on a fellow named William Deming and his role in Japan's re-industrialization.  When The Japanese were eating our lunches in the 1980's, a whole bunch of Americans were amazed that it was an American who taught them how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> As for Kennedy's attitude about Cuba?  Funny how the very same Mafia thugs that JFK used to steal the election to MAKE him President were the ones that were so instrumental in turning Cuba into the corrupt nation it became in the 1950's.  Battista isn't "my boy".  He was one more dictator who took power by force and abused his people.  He SHOULD have been overthrown by the people and he was.  The problem is that the person who replaced him was even worse than Battista was.  It's the exact same thing that happened in Russia when the Czar was overthrown by the people.  Stalin consolidates power and becomes far worse than the Czar ever was.  What the Cuban people needed were democratically elected leaders.  What they got was another dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wise PolSci professor of mine points out that NO government exists without the tacit acceptence of its people.
> 
> That's why Batista and the Tsar were toppled, but Stalin and persumeably Castro will die peacefully in their beds.
Click to expand...


Ah, Stalin died back in 1953, Joe...didn't get that memo either?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I note that you once again don't seem to want to attribute the site of the posts you cut and pasted from somewhere, Joe.  Was it THAT bad of a source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do links when I feel like them... when I think the person I am talking to is capable of being educated.
> 
> consider my lack of taking the time to do so a measure of disrespect towards you and your lazy thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider it to be evidence of your lack of ethics, Joe.  Unless YOU wrote it...you owe whoever DID the respect of crediting them for their work.  That's the kind of thing you learn when you HAVE an education!
Click to expand...


Not really. This isn't an acedemic paper... 

Instead of whining about "Where's the link", how about refuting the points made. 

In short- Batista was a dictator, his management of Cuba's economy was incompetent and corrupt to a point where George W. Bush would have said, "Damn!" and even our own officials admitted that supporting him was a mistake.  

Because you wingnuts keep trying to scream about what a paradise Cuba was (for rich people) when clearly it wasn't if the people rose up and threw those fuckers out.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Before you make anymore absurd statements about Japan?  Why don't you read up on it's recovery?  The combination of having about a billion and a half dollars pumped into it's economy by us coupled with the fact that it wasn't allowed to put any money into it's military led to Japan having one of the most modern industrial infrastructures in the world.  It's something that happened at an incredible rate due in large part to Japan's rather unique position of having trade with both sides of the "Cold War" at a time when most countries did not.  Japan was exporting so much stuff (just like China now) that their economy was booming.  THAT is not a Third World Country situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan did very little trade with China or Russia during the early cold war. What made Japan strong was that it actually followed the kind of FDR economics that the Republicans never let happen in the US.
> 
> Not that you are capable of being educated, but you really need to read up on a fellow named William Deming and his role in Japan's re-industrialization.  When The Japanese were eating our lunches in the 1980's, a whole bunch of Americans were amazed that it was an American who taught them how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> As for Kennedy's attitude about Cuba?  Funny how the very same Mafia thugs that JFK used to steal the election to MAKE him President were the ones that were so instrumental in turning Cuba into the corrupt nation it became in the 1950's.  Battista isn't "my boy".  He was one more dictator who took power by force and abused his people.  He SHOULD have been overthrown by the people and he was.  The problem is that the person who replaced him was even worse than Battista was.  It's the exact same thing that happened in Russia when the Czar was overthrown by the people.  Stalin consolidates power and becomes far worse than the Czar ever was.  What the Cuban people needed were democratically elected leaders.  What they got was another dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wise PolSci professor of mine points out that NO government exists without the tacit acceptence of its people.
> 
> That's why Batista and the Tsar were toppled, but Stalin and persumeably Castro will die peacefully in their beds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, Stalin died back in 1953, Joe...didn't get that memo either?
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension a problem for you?  I think you can clearly read that sentence and understand exactly what I was saying. 

But when you are losing an argument, harp on grammar. 

You did lose the argument, by the way, in case no one bothers to tell you, Corky.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> In order to have "rational" discussion, 9/11...first you have to start with two rational people.  You don't fit that description unfortunately.  You're one of those conspiracy nuts that wears tin foil hats and babbles about fake planes flying into the towers.
> 
> Joe thinks Castro and communism have been an improvement for the Cuban people.  I've actually visited Cuba and know about the conditions that the people there live under.  To say that it sucks would be an understatement.  Was Battista a thug?  Yes he was!  But to try and paint Fidel Castro as any less of a thug is laughable.  It's like saying that Stalin was better for the Russian people than Czar Nicolas II.



Well, let's look at that, Troll boy- 

Stalin won World War II. He saved Russia for complete Annihlation at the hands of Hitler. As opposed to that fuckwad, inbred Czar who lost World War I and had to give up half of Russia's European Territories.  Stalin got those territories back and then some. Russians look back at Stalin as the good old days when their power was unrivaled. He was recently voted the third greatest figure in Russian History. (This is despite the efforts of the Soviet and Russian governments to downplay him.) 

Now, for Cuba.  Does life in Cuba suck because Castro is evil, or because for 50 years, the US Government has threatened to sanction any company that does business there?  Any rational person who doesn't look at the Cold War as their great High School Football game would say, definitely the latter. 

So the Asshole Exile Community in Miami all rubbed their hands together (and maybe rubbed one out) when the USSR fell and said, "Oh, boy, when the checks stop coming from Moscow, the Cuban People will welcome us back with open arms!!!!"

And that didn't happen, for some reason.  I wonder why.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB did your love of Communism and Communist dictators begin before or after you were a Republican?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB did your love of Communism and Communist dictators begin before or after you were a Republican?



Guy, pointing out facts of history isn't a political t hing. 

As a wise man said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.  

Our Cuba Policy couldn't be worse if it was written by an angry retard.

If anything, our policies have probalby perpetuated Castro in power.  

Because your average Cuban looks at the way a wealthy country punishes them and says, "Well, Castro might be a jerk, but he's OUR Jerk".


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Now, for Cuba.  Does life in Cuba suck because Castro is evil, or because for 50 years, the US Government has threatened to sanction any company that does business there?  Any rational person who doesn't look at the Cold War as their great High School Football game would say, definitely the latter.



"Capitalism is evil.  And we fail at socialism because the evil capitalists won't do business with us."

And the leftists say this with a straight face.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for Cuba.  Does life in Cuba suck because Castro is evil, or because for 50 years, the US Government has threatened to sanction any company that does business there?  Any rational person who doesn't look at the Cold War as their great High School Football game would say, definitely the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Capitalism is evil.  And we fail at socialism because the evil capitalists won't do business with us."
> 
> And the leftists say this with a straight face.
Click to expand...


Progressives reject ownership of everything, including their failed ideology


----------



## editec

"Reagan was a Keynesian"​
David Stockman

Read your history kiddies.

Reagan was big government spender and a tax increaser, too!


----------



## thanatos144

editec said:


> "Reagan was a Keynesian"​
> David Stockman
> 
> Read your history kiddies.
> 
> Reagan was big government spender and a tax increaser, too!



More half truths from the left


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for Cuba.  Does life in Cuba suck because Castro is evil, or because for 50 years, the US Government has threatened to sanction any company that does business there?  Any rational person who doesn't look at the Cold War as their great High School Football game would say, definitely the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Capitalism is evil.  And we fail at socialism because the evil capitalists won't do business with us."
> 
> And the leftists say this with a straight face.
Click to expand...


No, I say this as a centrist who is honest.  

No matter what kind of system you have, if you put brutal sanctions on it, you are going to have misery.  

For instance, we put 10 years of sanctions on Iraq because they wouldn't throw out Saddam for us.   450,000 Iraqis- mostly children- died as a result.   Saddam stayed in power.  

So if we were going to really put it the right way, the expression should be, "Corporatism is evil, and to prove it, if you DARE reject what we tell you to do, we will impose sanctions on you and starve your Children. Because that's what JESUS would do!!!"

And Corporatists say that with a straight face.  And then try to get you upset about abortion or guns.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan did very little trade with China or Russia during the early cold war. What made Japan strong was that it actually followed the kind of FDR economics that the Republicans never let happen in the US.
> 
> Not that you are capable of being educated, but you really need to read up on a fellow named William Deming and his role in Japan's re-industrialization.  When The Japanese were eating our lunches in the 1980's, a whole bunch of Americans were amazed that it was an American who taught them how to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wise PolSci professor of mine points out that NO government exists without the tacit acceptence of its people.
> 
> That's why Batista and the Tsar were toppled, but Stalin and persumeably Castro will die peacefully in their beds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Stalin died back in 1953, Joe...didn't get that memo either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension a problem for you?  I think you can clearly read that sentence and understand exactly what I was saying.
> 
> But when you are losing an argument, harp on grammar.
> 
> You did lose the argument, by the way, in case no one bothers to tell you, Corky.
Click to expand...




as he has in ALL of his arguments.whats really funny about his ramblings is as always,he only got it half right.lol. It was his FATHER jOE kENNEDY that used the mob to get him elected.there is no shread of evidence that the Kennedy brothers themselves had ties to the mob. sure he dated Judith Exner,the girlfriend of mob boss sam giancana and was friends with Frank Sinatra but that hardly proves mob ties.

He also ignores that JFK double crossed the mob after getting elected.Giancana was instrumental in him getting elected rigging the elections in Illinois for him so he natually thought the kennedy brothers would let them run amok but he did the unthinkable,going after the big inchiladas prosecuting key mob figures having Bobby do most the dirty work.They hated Bobby with a passion especially since again,he went after  key mobsters like Santos Trafficanta deporting him from florida to another country.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do links when I feel like them... when I think the person I am talking to is capable of being educated.
> 
> consider my lack of taking the time to do so a measure of disrespect towards you and your lazy thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider it to be evidence of your lack of ethics, Joe.  Unless YOU wrote it...you owe whoever DID the respect of crediting them for their work.  That's the kind of thing you learn when you HAVE an education!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. This isn't an acedemic paper...
> 
> Instead of whining about "Where's the link", how about refuting the points made.
> 
> In short- Batista was a dictator, his management of Cuba's economy was incompetent and corrupt to a point where George W. Bush would have said, "Damn!" and even our own officials admitted that supporting him was a mistake.
> 
> Because you wingnuts keep trying to scream about what a paradise Cuba was (for rich people) when clearly it wasn't if the people rose up and threw those fuckers out.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you can co-opt the work of someone else and post it as if it was your own as long as it's not an "acedemic (sic) paper"?  Good to know, Joe!

Part of the process of "refuting" links here, involves knowing where the link came from.  It's pretty obvious at this point that you don't want to reveal where you got your info from which tells me you either cherry picked something or it's from a laughably bad source.  I'm leaning towards the latter since you have to be getting all of your nonsense from somewhere.

I never said Cuba was a paradise under Battista.  What I've simply pointed out is that the average Cuban was better off in many ways back then...then now.  Communism has failed miserably in Cuba, Joe.  The people endure extreme hardships because of Fidel Castro and his rejection of free market economies.  That's not a political "viewpoint"...that's the reality of Cuba since the Soviet Union crumbled and stopped subsidizing the Cuban economy.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, Stalin died back in 1953, Joe...didn't get that memo either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension a problem for you?  I think you can clearly read that sentence and understand exactly what I was saying.
> 
> But when you are losing an argument, harp on grammar.
> 
> You did lose the argument, by the way, in case no one bothers to tell you, Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as he has in ALL of his arguments.whats really funny about his ramblings is as always,he only got it half right.lol. It was his FATHER jOE kENNEDY that used the mob to get him elected.there is no shread of evidence that the Kennedy brothers themselves had ties to the mob. sure he dated Judith Exner,the girlfriend of mob boss sam giancana and was friends with Frank Sinatra but that hardly proves mob ties.
> 
> He also ignores that JFK double crossed the mob after getting elected.Giancana was instrumental in him getting elected rigging the elections in Illinois for him so he natually thought the kennedy brothers would let them run amok but he did the unthinkable,going after the big inchiladas prosecuting key mob figures having Bobby do most the dirty work.They hated Bobby with a passion especially since again,he went after  key mobsters like Santos Trafficanta deporting him from florida to another country.
Click to expand...


Oh, so Joe Kennedy was the only person who knew about the deal struck with Giancana to deliver Illinois?  John Kennedy didn't know a thing about it and you really believe that?  I'm sorry, 9/11 but I give JFK credit for more brains than that.  I think he knew exactly what his father was doing in Illinois.

The reason the mob hated the Kennedy's so much is that they DID welch on their deal with organized crime.  That's part of the Kennedy family persona though...they've always felt that they made their own rules.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB did your love of Communism and Communist dictators begin before or after you were a Republican?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, pointing out facts of history isn't a political t hing.
> 
> As a wise man said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
> 
> Our Cuba Policy couldn't be worse if it was written by an angry retard.
> 
> If anything, our policies have probalby perpetuated Castro in power.
> 
> Because your average Cuban looks at the way a wealthy country punishes them and says, "Well, Castro might be a jerk, but he's OUR Jerk".
Click to expand...


The average Cuban is afraid to even mention Castro by name, Joe.  When they speak about him they rub their chins as if stroking a beard instead of saying his name because talking about Castro can put you in prison in Cuba.  You'd know that if you ever visited the country!  You think Castro's rule in Cuba has endured because the people love him...when the real reason that Castro has lasted as long as he has is that he is a brutal dictator who squashes any opposition without a second thought.  His prisons are full of political prisoners who have done nothing except question his rule.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> In order to have "rational" discussion, 9/11...first you have to start with two rational people.  You don't fit that description unfortunately.  You're one of those conspiracy nuts that wears tin foil hats and babbles about fake planes flying into the towers.
> 
> Joe thinks Castro and communism have been an improvement for the Cuban people.  I've actually visited Cuba and know about the conditions that the people there live under.  To say that it sucks would be an understatement.  Was Battista a thug?  Yes he was!  But to try and paint Fidel Castro as any less of a thug is laughable.  It's like saying that Stalin was better for the Russian people than Czar Nicolas II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's look at that, Troll boy-
> 
> Stalin won World War II. He saved Russia for complete Annihlation at the hands of Hitler. As opposed to that fuckwad, inbred Czar who lost World War I and had to give up half of Russia's European Territories.  Stalin got those territories back and then some. Russians look back at Stalin as the good old days when their power was unrivaled. He was recently voted the third greatest figure in Russian History. (This is despite the efforts of the Soviet and Russian governments to downplay him.)
> 
> Now, for Cuba.  Does life in Cuba suck because Castro is evil, or because for 50 years, the US Government has threatened to sanction any company that does business there?  Any rational person who doesn't look at the Cold War as their great High School Football game would say, definitely the latter.
> 
> So the Asshole Exile Community in Miami all rubbed their hands together (and maybe rubbed one out) when the USSR fell and said, "Oh, boy, when the checks stop coming from Moscow, the Cuban People will welcome us back with open arms!!!!"
> 
> And that didn't happen, for some reason.  I wonder why.
Click to expand...


If you knew your European history, Joe...you wouldn't make the statement that Stalin *saved* the Soviet Union.  Stalin had 35,000 high ranking military officers executed between 1937 and 1941, leaving the Soviet military in total chaos and unable to defend itself at the start of war.  The three men who saved the Soviet Union from total annihilation were Adolf Hitler himself (with his flawed tactics), Field Marshal Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov (who defeated the Germans at Stalingrad and turned the tide of the war) and FDR (who through the Lend Lease Act sent over 11 billion dollars worth of supplies to the Soviet Union).  As usual your "knowledge" is sorely lacking.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

still another fart from the agent troll.

that means I have you on ignore since your obviously too stupid to figure that out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

since kennedys name was mentioned and the subject here is reagan,this is from another poster I came across who has done his homework very well.

Eisenhower got us into Vietnam. People blame Johnson mostly because he escalated the war, but we were already involved there when he became president. 

Nixon got us out, but Nixon was elected on the basis of his 'secret' plan to end the war. During the 1968 campaign he said he knew how to end it, but couldn't give the details for fear of tipping his hand to the enemy. 

According to the memoirs of his own chief of staff, H.R. Haldemann, Nixon's plan all along was simply to declare victory and pull out. He held a cabinet meeting soon after his inauguration in 1969 and asked his cabinet members to comment. Henry Kissinger, then only a national security adviser, told him if he ended the war then he would cause a recession from the cutback in federal spending. Kissinger convinced Nixon to keep the war going another 4 years just so a recession wouldn't threaten his second term. 

So in the end, more than half of our 50,000 US deaths, more than a million Vietnamise deaths, and by our own CIA's estimate, more than 600,000 deaths in Cambodia (-before- the rise of Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge and all the 'killing fields' stuff), Nixon caused all that just to get his sorry a** re-elected to a second term. Which he couldn't even finish. 

Also it was found that Nixon's people had been in touch with the North Vietnamise peace negotiators and had convinced them not to sign the treaty with Johnson. It's super illegal for a presidential campaign to influence foreign policy. Reagan's campaign did it too, in Iran.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

edit out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> still another fart from the agent troll.



double edit out.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

editec said:


> "Reagan was a Keynesian"​
> David Stockman
> 
> Read your history kiddies.
> 
> Reagan was big government spender and a tax increaser, too!



*Stockman is a Moron*​


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Oh, so you can co-opt the work of someone else and post it as if it was your own as long as it's not an "acedemic (sic) paper"?  Good to know, Joe!
> 
> 
> 1) I'm reasonably sure I put a link on the first of those three quotes.
> 
> 2) Only a complete retard would think I was passing it off as my own work.  Oh. Wait Forgot who I was talking to here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the process of "refuting" links here, involves knowing where the link came from.  It's pretty obvious at this point that you don't want to reveal where you got your info from which tells me you either cherry picked something or it's from a laughably bad source.  I'm leaning towards the latter since you have to be getting all of your nonsense from somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah... look it up yourself.  I'm sure if it's not from Glenn Beck or some other conservatard, you'd reject it. NExt.
Click to expand...

I never said Cuba was a paradise under Battista.  What I've simply pointed out is that the average Cuban was better off in many ways back then...then now.  Communism has failed miserably in Cuba, Joe.  The people endure extreme hardships because of Fidel Castro and his rejection of free market economies.  That's not a political "viewpoint"...that's the reality of Cuba since the Soviet Union crumbled and stopped subsidizing the Cuban economy.[/QUOTE]

The reality is, Cuba is miserable because we've been punishing it for 50 years.  Free Market Economies are not a panacea.  Frankly, they'd suck if anyone really tried one.  We certainly don't have one in this country.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> The reality is, Cuba is miserable because we've been punishing it for 50 years.  Free Market Economies are not a panacea.  Frankly, they'd suck if anyone really tried one.  We certainly don't have one in this country.



Cuba is miserable because communism sucks.

That's why virtually every country that tried communism has abandoned it.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, Cuba is miserable because we've been punishing it for 50 years.  Free Market Economies are not a panacea.  Frankly, they'd suck if anyone really tried one.  We certainly don't have one in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is miserable because communism sucks.
> 
> That's why virtually every country that tried communism has abandoned it.
Click to expand...


Every country that tried unregulated capitalism has abandoned it, too.  

They all realized you people need to be watched.  

Cuba is miserable because we've been punishing them for 50 years for rejecting us.  

I'm sure that makes you proud, but I don't take pleasure in starving children...


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Every country that tried unregulated capitalism has abandoned it, too.



Irrelevant.  We're talking about today, not 1890.



> They all realized you people need to be watched.



You want to watch us count all the money?



> Cuba is miserable because we've been punishing them for 50 years for rejecting us.



Capitalism rocks.  One day, Cuba will get with the program.  



> I'm sure that makes you proud, but I don't take pleasure in starving children...



Since when did you care about children?  You think its OK to terrorize kids.

We should abandon the trade embargo.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, Cuba is miserable because we've been punishing it for 50 years.  Free Market Economies are not a panacea.  Frankly, they'd suck if anyone really tried one.  We certainly don't have one in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba is miserable because communism sucks.
> 
> That's why virtually every country that tried communism has abandoned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every country that tried unregulated capitalism has abandoned it, too.
> 
> They all realized you people need to be watched.
> 
> Cuba is miserable because we've been punishing them for 50 years for rejecting us.
> 
> I'm sure that makes you proud, but I don't take pleasure in starving children...
Click to expand...


You know what's sad?  You know so little about history everywhere...and yet you're here on this board holding forth like you do!

What ignorant people like you don't realize is that at first the US *supported* the Cuban revolutionaries.  We had a ban on weapons sales to the Battista regime and were one of the first countries to recognize the new government in Havana following the takeover.  The truth is it wasn't until Castro nationalized the assets of private companies and imposed a heavy tax on all US imports that the US *responded* by imposing trade restrictions on Cuba.  I emphasize...that was a RESPONSE to the actions of the Castro regime!  It wasn't something that was imposed because Castro overthrew Battista.


----------



## Oldstyle

It was Castro's decision to join the Soviet "camp", working out trade deals with them, that led to a severing of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba.  That state of affairs was continued in large part because of Castro's decision to export the revolution to places like Africa...sending Cuban troops there to fight to establish other communist countries.  THAT is the reason why the embargo against Cuba went on and on even under US Presidents that wished to end it like Jimmy Carter!

The Cuban economy is "miserable" because of the actions of Fidel Castro over the decades since he seized power and the people of Cuba suffer because of those actions.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> You know what's sad?  You know so little about history everywhere...and yet you're here on this board holding forth like you do!
> 
> What ignorant people like you don't realize is that at first the US *supported* the Cuban revolutionaries.  We had a ban on weapons sales to the Battista regime and were one of the first countries to recognize the new government in Havana following the takeover.  The truth is it wasn't until Castro nationalized the assets of private companies and imposed a heavy tax on all US imports that the US *responded* by imposing trade restrictions on Cuba.  I emphasize...that was a RESPONSE to the actions of the Castro regime!  It wasn't something that was imposed because Castro overthrew Battista.



Dude, I have a degree in history from the university of Illinois. Now, mind you, it isn't one of those that teaching about talking snakes in Science Class, but it is what it is.  

So let's get this straight. 75% of the arable land in Cuba was owned by foreign corporations, and the FIRST THING Castro did was give those back to the Cuban people.  EEEEEEK, Communism.  

Oh, yeah, and he imposed a tarriff on American goods to raise revenues.  Again, can't see why that's a problem, exactly.  We need to do that to protect our industries, but never mind.  

Let's be honest about where it really all went south.  Castro decided, "FUck you, I'm a communist!"  and the US Reponse was to arm the asshole he had thrown out and try a counter-coup at the Bay of Pigs, where the Exiles PROMPTLY GOT THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM.   At that point, Castro threw in with the USSR and let them set up missiles.  

Now, after we thankfully stepped back from WWIII over our inability to admit that we fucked up, we decided that we were going to keep punishing Cuba economically.  And then the USSR fell, but the asshole exile community got itself some political power, so we are STILL punishing Cuba.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> It was Castro's decision to join the Soviet "camp", working out trade deals with them, that led to a severing of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba.  That state of affairs was continued in large part because of Castro's decision to export the revolution to places like Africa...sending Cuban troops there to fight to establish other communist countries.  THAT is the reason why the embargo against Cuba went on and on even under US Presidents that wished to end it like Jimmy Carter!
> 
> The Cuban economy is "miserable" because of the actions of Fidel Castro over the decades since he seized power and the people of Cuba suffer because of those actions.



Okay that was still over 30 years ago.  

What I find absolutely hilarious about guys like you and Toro is that man, you totally want to punish the fuck out of Cuba, and keep punishing Cuba because of EEEEKKKKKKK Communism...

But Communist China.  Man, you fucks can't move American jobs over there fast enough.  So what if they run over students with tanks and harvest people for transplant organs.  They are willing to sacrifice the well-being of people to make money selling out to big corporations.  

You know, one of these days, you might stop being a tool of big corporations.  Just saying.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Dude, I have a degree in history from the university of Illinois. Now, mind you, it isn't one of those that teaching about talking snakes in Science Class, but it is what it is.


Now that is funny! Anybody so patently stupid cannot have achieved anything more than high school, and that is allowing for Chicago public schooling.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You know what's sad?  You know so little about history everywhere...and yet you're here on this board holding forth like you do!
> 
> What ignorant people like you don't realize is that at first the US *supported* the Cuban revolutionaries.  We had a ban on weapons sales to the Battista regime and were one of the first countries to recognize the new government in Havana following the takeover.  The truth is it wasn't until Castro nationalized the assets of private companies and imposed a heavy tax on all US imports that the US *responded* by imposing trade restrictions on Cuba.  I emphasize...that was a RESPONSE to the actions of the Castro regime!  It wasn't something that was imposed because Castro overthrew Battista.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I have a degree in history from the university of Illinois. Now, mind you, it isn't one of those that teaching about talking snakes in Science Class, but it is what it is.
> 
> So let's get this straight. 75% of the arable land in Cuba was owned by foreign corporations, and the FIRST THING Castro did was give those back to the Cuban people.  EEEEEEK, Communism.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and he imposed a tarriff on American goods to raise revenues.  Again, can't see why that's a problem, exactly.  We need to do that to protect our industries, but never mind.
> 
> Let's be honest about where it really all went south.  Castro decided, "FUck you, I'm a communist!"  and the US Reponse was to arm the asshole he had thrown out and try a counter-coup at the Bay of Pigs, where the Exiles PROMPTLY GOT THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM.   At that point, Castro threw in with the USSR and let them set up missiles.
> 
> Now, after we thankfully stepped back from WWIII over our inability to admit that we fucked up, we decided that we were going to keep punishing Cuba economically.  And then the USSR fell, but the asshole exile community got itself some political power, so we are STILL punishing Cuba.
Click to expand...

Now I call bullshit! I doubt you even made it to high school.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I have a degree in history from the university of Illinois. Now, mind you, it isn't one of those that teaching about talking snakes in Science Class, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is funny! Anybody so patently stupid cannot have achieved anything more than high school, and that is allowing for Chicago public schooling.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who is boxing up those mail-order brides for shipment.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> [
> Now I call bullshit! I doubt you even made it to high school.



Yeah, again, you don't know the difference between "you're" and "your"... 

So there's that.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Now I call bullshit! I doubt you even made it to high school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, again, you don't know the difference between "you're" and "your"...
> 
> So there's that.
Click to expand...


LOL You cant even find a original insult LOL


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Now I call bullshit! I doubt you even made it to high school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, again, you don't know the difference between "you're" and "your"...
> 
> So there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL You cant even find a original insult LOL
Click to expand...


If you want an original insult, come up with something original.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, again, you don't know the difference between "you're" and "your"...
> 
> So there's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You cant even find a original insult LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want an original insult, come up with something original.
Click to expand...


I stick with truthful. You being a dishonest hack is the truth.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL You cant even find a original insult LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want an original insult, come up with something original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stick with truthful. You being a dishonest hack is the truth.
Click to expand...


Yup, if you accept "truth" as whatever you read on a Bircher website...


----------



## editec

Under Batista Cuba was a nightmare for most Cubans.

After all, That is_ WHY_ Fidel won.

Immediately following the revolution after Fidel declared his revolution communist, and after he started nationalizing American CORPORATE holdings, Fidel went (in terms of MSM public opinion) from an HEROIC LIBERATOR OF HIS PEOPLE to a communist dictator.

And yes, America conducted a war of TERRORISM against the Cuba people and government.

And make no mistake about it, CUBA is still being made to suffer for nationalizing former American Corporate holdings in Cuba.

But Communism still fails to motivate people to strive to do their best, and the communist insiders are no less parasitic than our own BANKSTER CLASS of parasites who are sucking the life out of our nation.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You know what's sad?  You know so little about history everywhere...and yet you're here on this board holding forth like you do!
> 
> What ignorant people like you don't realize is that at first the US *supported* the Cuban revolutionaries.  We had a ban on weapons sales to the Battista regime and were one of the first countries to recognize the new government in Havana following the takeover.  The truth is it wasn't until Castro nationalized the assets of private companies and imposed a heavy tax on all US imports that the US *responded* by imposing trade restrictions on Cuba.  I emphasize...that was a RESPONSE to the actions of the Castro regime!  It wasn't something that was imposed because Castro overthrew Battista.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I have a degree in history from the university of Illinois. Now, mind you, it isn't one of those that teaching about talking snakes in Science Class, but it is what it is.
> 
> So let's get this straight. 75% of the arable land in Cuba was owned by foreign corporations, and the FIRST THING Castro did was give those back to the Cuban people.  EEEEEEK, Communism.
> 
> Oh, yeah, and he imposed a tarriff on American goods to raise revenues.  Again, can't see why that's a problem, exactly.  We need to do that to protect our industries, but never mind.
> 
> Let's be honest about where it really all went south.  Castro decided, "FUck you, I'm a communist!"  and the US Reponse was to arm the asshole he had thrown out and try a counter-coup at the Bay of Pigs, where the Exiles PROMPTLY GOT THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM.   At that point, Castro threw in with the USSR and let them set up missiles.
> 
> Now, after we thankfully stepped back from WWIII over our inability to admit that we fucked up, we decided that we were going to keep punishing Cuba economically.  And then the USSR fell, but the asshole exile community got itself some political power, so we are STILL punishing Cuba.
Click to expand...


Jesus, Joe...you have a *degree* in history?  I'm sorry but I find that shocking considering your lack of knowledge about the subjects being discussed.


----------



## Oldstyle

editec said:


> Under Batista Cuba was a nightmare for most Cubans.
> 
> After all, That is_ WHY_ Fidel won.
> 
> Immediately following the revolution after Fidel declared his revolution communist, and after he started nationalizing American CORPORATE holdings, Fidel went (in terms of MSM public opinion) from an HEROIC LIBERATOR OF HIS PEOPLE to a communist dictator.
> 
> And yes, America conducted a war of TERRORISM against the Cuba people and government.
> 
> And make no mistake about it, CUBA is still being made to suffer for nationalizing former American Corporate holdings in Cuba.
> 
> But Communism still fails to motivate people to strive to do their best, and the communist insiders are no less parasitic than our own BANKSTER CLASS of parasites who are sucking the life out of our nation.



Oh for God's sake, Ed...the reason that Cuba is STILL being hit with sanctions isn't only because Castro nationalized Corporate holdings in Cuba!  There's things like Cuba sending troops to multiple conflicts in Africa and Central America to "internationalize" communism.  It's things like Castro shooting down two civilian planes for doing nothing more than trying to locate and rescue Cuban's attempting to escape from Cuba.  Or emptying their prisons and mental hospitals to sabotage the Mariel boat lift.  It's Castro imprisoning anyone who posed a threat to "his" rule of Cuba.  Fidel Castro is a dictator.  He had been since he refused to allow real elections to take place way back in the early 60's and he has continued to be so.  As bad as you think things were under Batista...and they were bad...they haven't been much better for the Cuban people under communism.  The level of poverty in Cuba following the demise of the Soviet Union was appalling.  The people were literally eating cats off the street to survive.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [q
> 
> Jesus, Joe...you have a *degree* in history?  I'm sorry but I find that shocking considering your lack of knowledge about the subjects being discussed.



What I find shocking is you think regurgitating cold war propaganda is an intellectual argument. 

Dismissed.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Oh for God's sake, Ed...the reason that Cuba is STILL being hit with sanctions isn't only because Castro nationalized Corporate holdings in Cuba!  There's things like Cuba sending troops to multiple conflicts in Africa and Central America to "internationalize" communism.  It's things like Castro shooting down two civilian planes for doing nothing more than trying to locate and rescue Cuban's attempting to escape from Cuba.  Or emptying their prisons and mental hospitals to sabotage the Mariel boat lift.  It's Castro imprisoning anyone who posed a threat to "his" rule of Cuba.  Fidel Castro is a dictator.  He had been since he refused to allow real elections to take place way back in the early 60's and he has continued to be so.  As bad as you think things were under Batista...and they were bad...they haven't been much better for the Cuban people under communism.  The level of poverty in Cuba following the demise of the Soviet Union was appalling.  The people were literally eating cats off the street to survive.



Hey, guy, what do you think if Al Qaeda flew some planes over the US right now, spreading Islamist propaganda?   You don't think they'd do the same thing Castro did to those exile assholes? 

We are still hitting Cuba with inhumane sanctions because the Douchebags in Florida have all our politicians pissing themselves.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Oh for God's sake, Ed...the reason that Cuba is STILL being hit with sanctions isn't only because Castro nationalized Corporate holdings in Cuba!  There's things like Cuba sending troops to multiple conflicts in Africa and Central America to "internationalize" communism.  It's things like Castro shooting down two civilian planes for doing nothing more than trying to locate and rescue Cuban's attempting to escape from Cuba.  Or emptying their prisons and mental hospitals to sabotage the Mariel boat lift.  It's Castro imprisoning anyone who posed a threat to "his" rule of Cuba.  Fidel Castro is a dictator.  He had been since he refused to allow real elections to take place way back in the early 60's and he has continued to be so.  As bad as you think things were under Batista...and they were bad...they haven't been much better for the Cuban people under communism.  The level of poverty in Cuba following the demise of the Soviet Union was appalling.  The people were literally eating cats off the street to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, what do you think if Al Qaeda flew some planes over the US right now, spreading Islamist propaganda?   You don't think they'd do the same thing Castro did to those exile assholes?
> 
> We are still hitting Cuba with inhumane sanctions because the Douchebags in Florida have all our politicians pissing themselves.
Click to expand...


Those two planes Castro shot down were flying over international waters looking for Cubans on rafts escaping your "workers paradise", Joe!  How THAT equates with Islamic terrorists over American is a stretch even for you.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Jesus, Joe...you have a *degree* in history?  I'm sorry but I find that shocking considering your lack of knowledge about the subjects being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find shocking is you think regurgitating cold war propaganda is an intellectual argument.
> 
> Dismissed.
Click to expand...


We're having an intellectual argument, Joe?  Gee, I thought you were spouting left wing talking points about the joys of Cuban communism...and I was pointing out the glaring fallacies in your contentions since I've actually visited Cuba and know something about the country and the conditions there.

Dismissed?  LOL  Really?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Oh for God's sake, Ed...the reason that Cuba is STILL being hit with sanctions isn't only because Castro nationalized Corporate holdings in Cuba!  There's things like Cuba sending troops to multiple conflicts in Africa and Central America to "internationalize" communism.  It's things like Castro shooting down two civilian planes for doing nothing more than trying to locate and rescue Cuban's attempting to escape from Cuba.  Or emptying their prisons and mental hospitals to sabotage the Mariel boat lift.  It's Castro imprisoning anyone who posed a threat to "his" rule of Cuba.  Fidel Castro is a dictator.  He had been since he refused to allow real elections to take place way back in the early 60's and he has continued to be so.  As bad as you think things were under Batista...and they were bad...they haven't been much better for the Cuban people under communism.  The level of poverty in Cuba following the demise of the Soviet Union was appalling.  The people were literally eating cats off the street to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, what do you think if Al Qaeda flew some planes over the US right now, spreading Islamist propaganda?   You don't think they'd do the same thing Castro did to those exile assholes?
> 
> We are still hitting Cuba with inhumane sanctions because the Douchebags in Florida have all our politicians pissing themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those two planes Castro shot down were flying over international waters looking for Cubans on rafts escaping your "workers paradise", Joe!  How THAT equates with Islamic terrorists over American is a stretch even for you.
Click to expand...


yeah, somehow, I don't think we'd wait for Al Qaeda planes to enter our airspace at this point. 

Frankly, if we stopped offering Cubans incentives to get into leaky rafts, they'd stop doing it. 

When Clinton imposed the "Wet Feet/Dry Feet" rule, guess what, that sort of thing dropped off quickly and Bush-43 didn't change it.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> Jesus, Joe...you have a *degree* in history?  I'm sorry but I find that shocking considering your lack of knowledge about the subjects being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I find shocking is you think regurgitating cold war propaganda is an intellectual argument.
> 
> Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're having an intellectual argument, Joe?  Gee, I thought you were spouting left wing talking points about the joys of Cuban communism...and I was pointing out the glaring fallacies in your contentions since I've actually visited Cuba and know something about the country and the conditions there.
> 
> Dismissed?  LOL  Really?
Click to expand...


I'm having an intellectual argument.  You are regurgitating whatever shit you've heard from anti-Communist websites. 

Not that I believe you'd ever actually visit Cuba.  Seriously, how'd you get in if it's a Communist prison?


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find shocking is you think regurgitating cold war propaganda is an intellectual argument.
> 
> Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're having an intellectual argument, Joe?  Gee, I thought you were spouting left wing talking points about the joys of Cuban communism...and I was pointing out the glaring fallacies in your contentions since I've actually visited Cuba and know something about the country and the conditions there.
> 
> Dismissed?  LOL  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm having an intellectual argument.  You are regurgitating whatever shit you've heard from anti-Communist websites.
> 
> Not that I believe you'd ever actually visit Cuba.  Seriously, how'd you get in if it's a Communist prison?
Click to expand...

Foreigners getting in to communist countries hasn't been that
difficult. Natives leaving worker's paradises was a bitch though, hence your beloved wall.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're having an intellectual argument, Joe?  Gee, I thought you were spouting left wing talking points about the joys of Cuban communism...and I was pointing out the glaring fallacies in your contentions since I've actually visited Cuba and know something about the country and the conditions there.
> 
> Dismissed?  LOL  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having an intellectual argument.  You are regurgitating whatever shit you've heard from anti-Communist websites.
> 
> Not that I believe you'd ever actually visit Cuba.  Seriously, how'd you get in if it's a Communist prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigners getting in to communist countries hasn't been that
> difficult. Natives leaving worker's paradises was a bitch though, hence your beloved wall.
Click to expand...


Yawn, guy, getting kind of bored with you guys reliving the Cold War.  

I guess it was the only time anyone ever took the far right seriously.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having an intellectual argument.  You are regurgitating whatever shit you've heard from anti-Communist websites.
> 
> Not that I believe you'd ever actually visit Cuba.  Seriously, how'd you get in if it's a Communist prison?
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners getting in to communist countries hasn't been that
> difficult. Natives leaving worker's paradises was a bitch though, hence your beloved wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, getting kind of bored with you guys reliving the Cold War.
> 
> I guess it was the only time anyone ever took the far right seriously.
Click to expand...

The Cold War is over, except in your embattled brain. You lost, get over it!


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreigners getting in to communist countries hasn't been that
> difficult. Natives leaving worker's paradises was a bitch though, hence your beloved wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, getting kind of bored with you guys reliving the Cold War.
> 
> I guess it was the only time anyone ever took the far right seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Cold War is over, except in your embattled brain. You lost, get over it!
Click to expand...


Actually, both sides lost.  

America is 16 trillion in debt with a busted middle class.  I'm still not seeing that as "Winning".


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, getting kind of bored with you guys reliving the Cold War.
> 
> I guess it was the only time anyone ever took the far right seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold War is over, except in your embattled brain. You lost, get over it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, both sides lost.
> 
> America is 16 trillion in debt with a busted middle class.  I'm still not seeing that as "Winning".
Click to expand...

The USA is still here, albeit with incompetent leadership, but still a superpower. Where is the USSR? 

You lost! Move on to some other failed cause like keeping a job.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold War is over, except in your embattled brain. You lost, get over it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, both sides lost.
> 
> America is 16 trillion in debt with a busted middle class.  I'm still not seeing that as "Winning".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USA is still here, albeit with incompetent leadership, but still a superpower. Where is the USSR?
> 
> You lost! Move on to some other failed cause like keeping a job.
Click to expand...


Um, sorry, man, Russia is still there.   

And you really think we aer still a superpower?  We can't even beat a country like Iraq into submission....


----------



## Meathead

Russia is still there? Where was it going to go?! I asked you about your beloved Soviet Union (USSR). You're always good for a laugh and a bit of ridicule Joey, but inane dialogue like this gets tedious after a while.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Russia is still there? Where was it going to go?! I asked you about your beloved Soviet Union (USSR). You're always good for a laugh and a bit of ridicule Joey, but inane dialogue like this gets tedious after a while.



Actually, what is tedious is watching all those good paying jobs go to Communist China, and then claiming we somehow "won" the Cold War. 

Someone needs to tell the Chinese.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is still there? Where was it going to go?! I asked you about your beloved Soviet Union (USSR). You're always good for a laugh and a bit of ridicule Joey, but inane dialogue like this gets tedious after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what is tedious is watching all those good paying jobs go to Communist China, and then claiming we somehow "won" the Cold War.
> 
> Someone needs to tell the Chinese.
Click to expand...


China, Vietnam and Russia all recently rejected Progressive economic and are prospering, if only the "American" Left would realized they were humped and left at the alter.

It's funny watching the Left call for a system their ideological leaders have abandoned


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is still there? Where was it going to go?! I asked you about your beloved Soviet Union (USSR). You're always good for a laugh and a bit of ridicule Joey, but inane dialogue like this gets tedious after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what is tedious is watching all those good paying jobs go to Communist China, and then claiming we somehow "won" the Cold War.
> 
> Someone needs to tell the Chinese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China, Vietnam and Russia all recently rejected Progressive economic and are prospering, if only the "American" Left would realized they were humped and left at the alter.
> 
> It's funny watching the Left call for a system their ideological leaders have abandoned
Click to expand...


No, they are still ruled by the COMMUNIST party and they still call themselves "COMMUNIST" states.  

Frankly, you actually really need to read about how China does business... It isn't the kind of Free Market shit you guys claim it is...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what is tedious is watching all those good paying jobs go to Communist China, and then claiming we somehow "won" the Cold War.
> 
> Someone needs to tell the Chinese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China, Vietnam and Russia all recently rejected Progressive economic and are prospering, if only the "American" Left would realized they were humped and left at the alter.
> 
> It's funny watching the Left call for a system their ideological leaders have abandoned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are still ruled by the COMMUNIST party and they still call themselves "COMMUNIST" states.
> 
> Frankly, you actually really need to read about how China does business... It isn't the kind of Free Market shit you guys claim it is...
Click to expand...


I listed three countries all of which are at least a whole order of magnitude better than they were as your Workers Paradise.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, what do you think if Al Qaeda flew some planes over the US right now, spreading Islamist propaganda?   You don't think they'd do the same thing Castro did to those exile assholes?
> 
> We are still hitting Cuba with inhumane sanctions because the Douchebags in Florida have all our politicians pissing themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those two planes Castro shot down were flying over international waters looking for Cubans on rafts escaping your "workers paradise", Joe!  How THAT equates with Islamic terrorists over American is a stretch even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, somehow, I don't think we'd wait for Al Qaeda planes to enter our airspace at this point.
> 
> Frankly, if we stopped offering Cubans incentives to get into leaky rafts, they'd stop doing it.
> 
> When Clinton imposed the "Wet Feet/Dry Feet" rule, guess what, that sort of thing dropped off quickly and Bush-43 didn't change it.
Click to expand...


Cubans are NOT braving a hundred and fifty miles of shark infested ocean on small rafts because of "incentives" we've offered, Joe...they risk their lives to leave Cuba because life there is so bad.  What part of that concept don't you grasp?


----------



## hangover

Raygun lived his whole life in fantasy land. His greatest accomplishment was BEDTIME FOR BONZO.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

hangover said:


> Raygun lived his whole life in fantasy land. His greatest accomplishment was BEDTIME FOR BONZO.



Welcome Back Dante


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find shocking is you think regurgitating cold war propaganda is an intellectual argument.
> 
> Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're having an intellectual argument, Joe?  Gee, I thought you were spouting left wing talking points about the joys of Cuban communism...and I was pointing out the glaring fallacies in your contentions since I've actually visited Cuba and know something about the country and the conditions there.
> 
> Dismissed?  LOL  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm having an intellectual argument.  You are regurgitating whatever shit you've heard from anti-Communist websites.
> 
> Not that I believe you'd ever actually visit Cuba.  Seriously, how'd you get in if it's a Communist prison?
Click to expand...


Two ways actually, I can fly directly there directly from Costa Rica where I have a home.  When you land in Cuba you ask that your passport not be stamped.  Or you can fly directly from the US on a humanitarian passport, something I had for a number of years before the US government made them harder to obtain.  Before, if you were bringing in "medical supplies", you qualified...now you have to belong to specific "approved" groups.

I have friends on the Isla de la Juventud that I've been visiting for coming up on 30 years.  Every trip there my suitcases are filled with things my Cubano friends can't get that we take for granted.  A bottle of Tums is like gold.  What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't hard to get *into *a place like Cuba...it's like visiting someone in prison.  Just because you can get in...doesn't mean that the prisoners can get out.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, they are still ruled by the COMMUNIST party and they still call themselves "COMMUNIST" states.
> 
> Frankly, you actually really need to read about how China does business... It isn't the kind of Free Market shit you guys claim it is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listed three countries all of which are at least a whole order of magnitude better than they were as your Workers Paradise.
Click to expand...


I don't know, I think I would have rather live in Cuba where I get free health care than China, where they chop you up for transplant organs.... 

Incidently, work for a large, international corporation that does business in the US and China, and recently got to spend some time with a co-worker from there. 

Some of the highlights. 

She was amazed that our major cities have clean air and clean water compared to hers. (Again, due to Government, not Private Enterprise). 

She mentioned that she and her husband only had one child, and if they wanted a second, they'd have to pay $20,000 to do so.  (No mention if she found herself pregnant by accident, because I didn't really want to hear the answer.)  

She was really curious about the election of 2012 (this was September of last year) and was amazed that we had real choices in our elections.  

So, really, guy, if you want to cite China as a place that is SOOOOOO much better now that they haven't really rejected Communism all that much, have at it.  

Just admit you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Two ways actually, I can fly directly there directly from Costa Rica where I have a home.  When you land in Cuba you ask that your passport not be stamped.  Or you can fly directly from the US on a humanitarian passport, *something I had for a number of years before the US government made them harder to obtain. * Before, if you were bringing in "medical supplies", you qualified...now you have to belong to specific "approved" groups.
> 
> I have friends on the Isla de la Juventud that I've been visiting for coming up on 30 years.  *Every trip there my suitcases are filled with things my Cubano friends can't get that we take for granted.  A bottle of Tums is like gold.*  What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't hard to get *into *a place like Cuba...it's like visiting someone in prison.  Just because you can get in...doesn't mean that the prisoners can get out.



So what you are admitting here, whether you realize it or not, is that MOST of the misery in Cuba is caused by the Sanctions were are imposing out of spite. 

Not that you'll ever admit that.  

How about this. Let's lift the sanctions, let Cubans come here and visit our shopping malls, let companies trade there. and then we'll see if Cubans throw out Castro or not. 

My guess is they won't.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, they are still ruled by the COMMUNIST party and they still call themselves "COMMUNIST" states.
> 
> Frankly, you actually really need to read about how China does business... It isn't the kind of Free Market shit you guys claim it is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listed three countries all of which are at least a whole order of magnitude better than they were as your Workers Paradise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, I think I would have rather live in Cuba where I get free health care than China, where they chop you up for transplant organs....
> 
> Incidently, work for a large, international corporation that does business in the US and China, and recently got to spend some time with a co-worker from there.
> 
> Some of the highlights.
> 
> She was amazed that our major cities have clean air and clean water compared to hers. (Again, due to Government, not Private Enterprise).
> 
> She mentioned that she and her husband only had one child, and if they wanted a second, they'd have to pay $20,000 to do so.  (No mention if she found herself pregnant by accident, because I didn't really want to hear the answer.)
> 
> She was really curious about the election of 2012 (this was September of last year) and was amazed that we had real choices in our elections.
> 
> So, really, guy, if you want to cite China as a place that is SOOOOOO much better now that they haven't really rejected Communism all that much, have at it.
> 
> Just admit you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Joe you didn't read my post so it makes no sense for me to respond


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> Joe you didn't read my post so it makes no sense for me to respond



No, guy, I read your posts and have to conclude you are a borderline retard.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Joe you didn't read my post so it makes no sense for me to respond
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I read your posts and have to conclude you are a borderline retard.
Click to expand...


I was talking about economic improvement and you were discussing abortion


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Frankly, if we stopped offering Cubans incentives to get into leaky rafts, they'd stop doing it..



"Incentives?"

You mean, like, "freedom?"

&#1050;&#1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1091;&#1085;&#1080;&#1079;&#1084;&#1072;, &#1086;&#1090;&#1082;&#1072;&#1079;, &#1044;&#1078;&#1086;


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost! Move on to some other failed cause like keeping a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, sorry, man, Russia is still there.
Click to expand...


Russia isn't the USSR.

"History major."

lol


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Two ways actually, I can fly directly there directly from Costa Rica where I have a home.  When you land in Cuba you ask that your passport not be stamped.  Or you can fly directly from the US on a humanitarian passport, *something I had for a number of years before the US government made them harder to obtain. * Before, if you were bringing in "medical supplies", you qualified...now you have to belong to specific "approved" groups.
> 
> I have friends on the Isla de la Juventud that I've been visiting for coming up on 30 years.  *Every trip there my suitcases are filled with things my Cubano friends can't get that we take for granted.  A bottle of Tums is like gold.*  What you don't seem to understand is that it isn't hard to get *into *a place like Cuba...it's like visiting someone in prison.  Just because you can get in...doesn't mean that the prisoners can get out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are admitting here, whether you realize it or not, is that MOST of the misery in Cuba is caused by the Sanctions were are imposing out of spite.
> 
> Not that you'll ever admit that.
> 
> How about this. Let's lift the sanctions, let Cubans come here and visit our shopping malls, let companies trade there. and then we'll see if Cubans throw out Castro or not.
> 
> My guess is they won't.
Click to expand...


You really don't understand this situation...do you?  It isn't the US Government that is preventing Cubans from coming here and visiting our shopping malls...it's the Cuban Government that won't allow it's people to come and go.  Castro holds his own people hostage and has been doing so for fifty years while blaming the US.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Joe you didn't read my post so it makes no sense for me to respond
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I read your posts and have to conclude you are a borderline retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about economic improvement and you were discussing abortion
Click to expand...


No, you were insisting China's growth has been due to Capitalism, when in fact, nothing of the sort is true.  The fact the right wing sees China as a model of even greater corporate exploitation of working folks is kind of fuckin' scary.  

But the Corporatists can't move American jobs over there fast enough, despite the bad treatment of workers, shitty quality and environmental degradation.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost! Move on to some other failed cause like keeping a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, sorry, man, Russia is still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't the USSR.
> 
> "History major."
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


Uh, yeah, actually it is. Look at a map of the Russian Empire, and then look at a map of the USSR.  Guess what, they are almost completely the same. 


And th is is what you guys who look at the fall of the USSR fail to realize.  It wasn't a system that failed, it was an empire that failed. 

The fall of the USSR is no more a failure of "communism" than the fall of the British Empire is a failure of "Captialism".   Empires fail. Systems adapt.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, if we stopped offering Cubans incentives to get into leaky rafts, they'd stop doing it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Incentives?"
> 
> You mean, like, "freedom?"
> 
> &#1050;&#1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1091;&#1085;&#1080;&#1079;&#1084;&#1072;, &#1086;&#1090;&#1082;&#1072;&#1079;, &#1044;&#1078;&#1086;
Click to expand...


No, I mean like big huge bribes, dumbass.  

You do know that we offered Cubans huge bribes to come here, right?  Unlike Mexicans who come here in even greater numbers, and we can't build fences strong enough to keep them out.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, sorry, man, Russia is still there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia isn't the USSR.
> 
> "History major."
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, actually it is. Look at a map of the Russian Empire, and then look at a map of the USSR.  Guess what, they are almost completely the same.
> 
> 
> And th is is what you guys who look at the fall of the USSR fail to realize.  It wasn't a system that failed, it was an empire that failed.
> 
> The fall of the USSR is no more a failure of "communism" than the fall of the British Empire is a failure of "Captialism".   Empires fail. Systems adapt.
Click to expand...

As much as you might wish it, Russia is considerably smaller that the USSR. Communism did not adapt, it was discarded. History degree .


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia isn't the USSR.
> 
> "History major."
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, actually it is. Look at a map of the Russian Empire, and then look at a map of the USSR.  Guess what, they are almost completely the same.
> 
> 
> And th is is what you guys who look at the fall of the USSR fail to realize.  It wasn't a system that failed, it was an empire that failed.
> 
> The fall of the USSR is no more a failure of "communism" than the fall of the British Empire is a failure of "Captialism".   Empires fail. Systems adapt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As much as you might wish it, Russia is considerably smaller that the USSR. History degree .
Click to expand...


Yeah, what's your fucking point, or did you completely miss it again. 

Okay, one more time.  The USSR did not fall because, "Communism sucks". 

The USSR Fell because Uzbeks and Kazaks and Lithuanians decided they didn't want to be ruled by Russians, and Russians decided they really didn't want to rule them directly. (Although Russia does dominate the economies of these places still.) 

But you guys will dance around the ruins of your middle class life style and say, "We won the cold war."

Well, sorry, guy, I look around, see that my generation isn't living as good as my father's generation, and the generation following me has even worse prospects than I have, and I guess I just don't see it.   I think what you had was two empires that ground themselves into exhaustion.  

In 1980, a PolSci professor said to me, the real threat to the US is not the USSR, it's the Third World.  

2013, I'm seeing that as having come pretty much true.


----------



## Meathead

You'd think someone so used to losing would handle it better.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> You'd think someone so used to losing would handle it better.



Wouldn't know, guy, I don't lose.  I adapt. 

But pointing out that shit, the GOP really, really fucked everything up is hardly losing. 

In 2000, we had peace, we had prosperity, we had 3% unemployment, the rich paid their fair share, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see and Americans said, "Yeah, man, let's have more of that!" and voted for Gore.  

But then the GOP stole the election, and we got trillion dollar debts, tax giveaways to the rich, wars, two recessions, 10% unemployment when it was all said and done. 

And I used to support the GOP. Until I saw that they really, really don't know what they are doing.  Or maybe they know what they are doing, and they are total sociopaths.  Either way, they can't be trusted.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, actually it is. Look at a map of the Russian Empire, and then look at a map of the USSR.  Guess what, they are almost completely the same.
> 
> 
> And th is is what you guys who look at the fall of the USSR fail to realize.  It wasn't a system that failed, it was an empire that failed.
> 
> The fall of the USSR is no more a failure of "communism" than the fall of the British Empire is a failure of "Captialism".   Empires fail. Systems adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> As much as you might wish it, Russia is considerably smaller that the USSR. History degree .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's your fucking point, or did you completely miss it again.
> 
> Okay, one more time.  The USSR did not fall because, "Communism sucks".
> 
> The USSR Fell because Uzbeks and Kazaks and Lithuanians decided they didn't want to be ruled by Russians, and Russians decided they really didn't want to rule them directly. (Although Russia does dominate the economies of these places still.)
> 
> But you guys will dance around the ruins of your middle class life style and say, "We won the cold war."
> 
> Well, sorry, guy, I look around, see that my generation isn't living as good as my father's generation, and the generation following me has even worse prospects than I have, and I guess I just don't see it.   I think what you had was two empires that ground themselves into exhaustion.
> 
> In 1980, a PolSci professor said to me, the real threat to the US is not the USSR, it's the Third World.
> 
> 2013, I'm seeing that as having come pretty much true.
Click to expand...


The USSR failed because communism is an economic system that does not work.  

Sadly, America and much of the West resembles the USSR more every day.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> The USSR failed because communism is an economic system that does not work.
> 
> Sadly, America and much of the West resembles the USSR more every day.



you keep telling yourself that.  

Here's the thing.  The whole world will continue to go to the entitlement state. Europe already got there a long time ago.  Russia never really left.  

Simply put, when people can't get where they want to go through hard work, because someone with more money will always try to cheat them, they will simply vote themselves a living.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think someone so used to losing would handle it better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know, guy, I don't lose.  I adapt.
> 
> But pointing out that shit, the GOP really, really fucked everything up is hardly losing.
> 
> In 2000, we had peace, we had prosperity, we had 3% unemployment, the rich paid their fair share, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see and Americans said, "Yeah, man, let's have more of that!" and voted for Gore.
> 
> But then the GOP stole the election, and we got trillion dollar debts, tax giveaways to the rich, wars, two recessions, 10% unemployment when it was all said and done.
> 
> And I used to support the GOP. Until I saw that they really, really don't know what they are doing.  Or maybe they know what they are doing, and they are total sociopaths.  Either way, they can't be trusted.
Click to expand...


Bush had more votes in Florida than Gore.

Is that what turned you? When the Cubans in Miami voted for Bush because of this


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost! Move on to some other failed cause like keeping a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, sorry, man, Russia is still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Russia isn't the USSR.
> 
> "History major."
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


United Soviet States of Russia


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think someone so used to losing would handle it better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know, guy, I don't lose.  I adapt.
> 
> But pointing out that shit, the GOP really, really fucked everything up is hardly losing.
> 
> In 2000, we had peace, we had prosperity, we had 3% unemployment, the rich paid their fair share, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see and Americans said, "Yeah, man, let's have more of that!" and voted for Gore.
> 
> But then the GOP stole the election, and we got trillion dollar debts, tax giveaways to the rich, wars, two recessions, 10% unemployment when it was all said and done.
> 
> And I used to support the GOP. Until I saw that they really, really don't know what they are doing.  Or maybe they know what they are doing, and they are total sociopaths.  Either way, they can't be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush had more votes in Florida than Gore.
> 
> Is that what turned you? When the Cubans in Miami voted for Bush because of this
> 
> ]
Click to expand...


No, guy, what turned me is when my ex-boss said he could totally fuck me over despite having seniority because "he didn't haev to deal with a union".  because I had run up too many medical bills, and they were trying to get me to quit.  

And then when that didn't work, they just fired me and paid me some "Please don't sue us money" before the whole company imploded.  

Oh, Gore probably got more votes in Florida, despite the Cubers...  But Jeb stole the ballot boxes, so we'll never know.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The USSR failed because communism is an economic system that does not work.
> 
> Sadly, America and much of the West resembles the USSR more every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, when people can't get where they want to go through hard work, because someone with more money will always try to cheat them, they will simply vote themselves a living.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Greek model! Greeks were voting themselves an easy living for years. Now, of course, they're on a street corner with hat in hand looking for alms from their more responsible European cousins.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Simply put, when people can't get where they want to go through hard work, because someone with more money will always try to cheat them, they will simply vote themselves a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you do know that the entitlement/welfare state is not sustainable...right?
> 
> It will ultimately implode.  And then, what will we get?
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know, guy, I don't lose.  I adapt.
> 
> But pointing out that shit, the GOP really, really fucked everything up is hardly losing.
> 
> In 2000, we had peace, we had prosperity, we had 3% unemployment, the rich paid their fair share, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see and Americans said, "Yeah, man, let's have more of that!" and voted for Gore.
> 
> But then the GOP stole the election, and we got trillion dollar debts, tax giveaways to the rich, wars, two recessions, 10% unemployment when it was all said and done.
> 
> And I used to support the GOP. Until I saw that they really, really don't know what they are doing.  Or maybe they know what they are doing, and they are total sociopaths.  Either way, they can't be trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush had more votes in Florida than Gore.
> 
> Is that what turned you? When the Cubans in Miami voted for Bush because of this
> 
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy, what turned me is when my ex-boss said he could totally fuck me over despite having seniority because "he didn't haev to deal with a union".  because I had run up too many medical bills, and they were trying to get me to quit.
> 
> And then when that didn't work, they just fired me and paid me some "Please don't sue us money" before the whole company imploded.
> 
> Oh, Gore probably got more votes in Florida, despite the Cubers...  But Jeb stole the ballot boxes, so we'll never know.
Click to expand...


I'm always skeptical about the history of former Republican posters who openly advocate for Communism.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The USSR failed because communism is an economic system that does not work.
> 
> Sadly, America and much of the West resembles the USSR more every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, when people can't get where they want to go through hard work, because someone with more money will always try to cheat them, they will simply vote themselves a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the Greek model! Greeks were voting themselves an easy living for years. Now, of course, they're on a street corner with hat in hand looking for alms from their more responsible European cousins.
Click to expand...


You mean the ones that screwed them over to start with. 

Greece's problem was that it joined the Euro and can't control the value of its own currency.  

Has very little do to with their moderate social programs.  

Ireland is in exactly the same boat despite doing everything the conservatives suggested.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush had more votes in Florida than Gore.
> 
> Is that what turned you? When the Cubans in Miami voted for Bush because of this
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, what turned me is when my ex-boss said he could totally fuck me over despite having seniority because "he didn't haev to deal with a union".  because I had run up too many medical bills, and they were trying to get me to quit.
> 
> And then when that didn't work, they just fired me and paid me some "Please don't sue us money" before the whole company imploded.
> 
> Oh, Gore probably got more votes in Florida, despite the Cubers...  But Jeb stole the ballot boxes, so we'll never know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always skeptical about the history of former Republican posters who openly advocate for Communism.
Click to expand...


I'm skeptical of people who live though the biggest failure of the last century and then still try to claim they have good ideas. 

2008 was an acid  test.  You guys got deregulation, tax cuts, and so on, and it was a complete disaster.  

Insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, when people can't get where they want to go through hard work, because someone with more money will always try to cheat them, they will simply vote themselves a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you do know that the entitlement/welfare state is not sustainable...right?
> 
> It will ultimately implode.  And then, what will we get?
Click to expand...


Depends what you mean by "sustainable".   

I think what is unsustainable is plutocracy.  If you have 1% with 43% of the wealth and 20% with 87% of the wealth and the other 80% are fighting over what little is left, that's unsustainable. 

And that's when you get people voting to redistribute.  

Here's the thing. 20 years ago, I'd have never voted for a guy like Obama. 

Five years ago, despite all that happened, I still voted for McCain.  

This time. No problem voting for Obama at all.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, what turned me is when my ex-boss said he could totally fuck me over despite having seniority because "he didn't haev to deal with a union".  because I had run up too many medical bills, and they were trying to get me to quit.
> 
> And then when that didn't work, they just fired me and paid me some "Please don't sue us money" before the whole company imploded.
> 
> Oh, Gore probably got more votes in Florida, despite the Cubers...  But Jeb stole the ballot boxes, so we'll never know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always skeptical about the history of former Republican posters who openly advocate for Communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of people who live though the biggest failure of the last century and then still try to claim they have good ideas.
Click to expand...

The communist parties in Europe are an excellent example. They garnered 15% in the Czech elections last weekend which means idiots like Joe are out there and voting. Whew!


----------



## editec

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, sorry, man, Russia is still there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia isn't the USSR.
> 
> "History major."
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, actually it is. Look at a map of the Russian Empire, and then look at a map of the USSR.  Guess what, they are almost completely the same.
> 
> 
> And th is is what you guys who look at the fall of the USSR fail to realize.  It wasn't a system that failed, it was an empire that failed.
> 
> The fall of the USSR is no more a failure of "communism" than the fall of the British Empire is a failure of "Captialism". *  Empires fail. Systems adapt*.
Click to expand...


And sometimes, and the former USSR is one example, Empires both fail _BECAUSE_ their system failed.

Which is what happened to the USSR, Joe.


Now obviously that is NOT happening in china, where they have melded the needs of the Chinese Communist elite to the needs of their former CAPITALIST ENEMIES to create the absolute WORST of both worlds.

A system with all the failings of a nation built  by capitalist exploitation of the working class AND all the failings of a nation bend under the yoke of pseudo-Communism.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, when people can't get where they want to go through hard work, because someone with more money will always try to cheat them, they will simply vote themselves a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you do know that the entitlement/welfare state is not sustainable...right?
> 
> It will ultimately implode.  And then, what will we get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by "sustainable".
> 
> I think what is unsustainable is plutocracy.  If you have 1% with 43% of the wealth and 20% with 87% of the wealth and the other 80% are fighting over what little is left, that's unsustainable.
> 
> And that's when you get people voting to redistribute.
> 
> Here's the thing. 20 years ago, I'd have never voted for a guy like Obama.
> 
> Five years ago, despite all that happened, I still voted for McCain.
> 
> This time. No problem voting for Obama at all.
Click to expand...


Does the word 'sustainable' have multiple meanings?  It is not a trick question.

Chris Hedges puts it rather well with this...



> Our collapse will take the whole planet with it.
> 
> It is more pleasant, I admit, to stand mesmerized in front of our electronic hallucinations. It is easier to check out intellectually. It is more gratifying to imbibe the hedonism and the sickness of the worship of the self and money. It is more comforting to chatter about celebrity gossip and ignore or dismiss what is reality.
> 
> Thomas Mann in The Magic Mountain and Joseph Roth in Hotel Savoy brilliantly chronicled this peculiar state of mind. In Roths hotel the first three floors house in luxury the bloated rich, the amoral politicians, the bankers and the business owners. The upper floors are crammed with people who struggle to pay their bills and who are steadily divested of their possessions until they are destitute and cast out. There is no political ideology among decayed ruling elites, despite choreographed debates and elaborate political theater. It is, as it always is at the end, *one vast kleptocracy.*
> 
> Just before World War II, a friend asked Roth, a Jewish intellectual who had fled Nazi Germany for Paris, Why are you drinking so much? Roth answered: Do you think you are going to escape? You too are going to be wiped out.



I just might take up drinking...a lot of drinking.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think someone so used to losing would handle it better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know, guy, I don't lose.  I adapt.
> 
> But pointing out that shit, the GOP really, really fucked everything up is hardly losing.
> 
> In 2000, we had peace, we had prosperity, we had 3% unemployment, the rich paid their fair share, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see and Americans said, "Yeah, man, let's have more of that!" and voted for Gore.
> 
> But then the GOP stole the election, and we got trillion dollar debts, tax giveaways to the rich, wars, two recessions, 10% unemployment when it was all said and done.
> 
> And I used to support the GOP. Until I saw that they really, really don't know what they are doing.  Or maybe they know what they are doing, and they are total sociopaths.  Either way, they can't be trusted.
Click to expand...


The GOP "stole" the election in 2000?  You're one of the naive ones that actually buys that nonsense, Joe?  Al Gore didn't even carry his home State of Tennessee.  The people that know him best voted for the other guy.  The rest of your rant is equally flawed.  We got war because Islamic terrorists flew planes loaded with innocent civilians into targets here in the United States...an act that would have taken place no matter WHO was President.  It was a war that Democrats supported almost as much as Republicans!  As for the 10% unemployment rate?  That took place after Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's badly conceived "stimulus" failed miserably.  How can someone who claims to be a history major be so oblivious to what took place in history?


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, when people can't get where they want to go through hard work, because someone with more money will always try to cheat them, they will simply vote themselves a living.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the Greek model! Greeks were voting themselves an easy living for years. Now, of course, they're on a street corner with hat in hand looking for alms from their more responsible European cousins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the ones that screwed them over to start with.
> 
> Greece's problem was that it joined the Euro and can't control the value of its own currency.
> 
> Has very little do to with their moderate social programs.
> 
> Ireland is in exactly the same boat despite doing everything the conservatives suggested.
Click to expand...


Moderate social programs?  Greece?  Did you REALLY just make that claim?  God, Joe...you keep showing your knowledge of world events to be paper thin.  You seem to think that Greece's problems would be *solved *if they could just print their own money which is laughable.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from you oldstlye.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> As much as you might wish it, Russia is considerably smaller that the USSR. History degree .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, what's your fucking point, or did you completely miss it again.
> 
> Okay, one more time.  The USSR did not fall because, "Communism sucks".
> 
> The USSR Fell because Uzbeks and Kazaks and Lithuanians decided they didn't want to be ruled by Russians, and Russians decided they really didn't want to rule them directly. (Although Russia does dominate the economies of these places still.)
> 
> But you guys will dance around the ruins of your middle class life style and say, "We won the cold war."
> 
> Well, sorry, guy, I look around, see that my generation isn't living as good as my father's generation, and the generation following me has even worse prospects than I have, and I guess I just don't see it.   I think what you had was two empires that ground themselves into exhaustion.
> 
> In 1980, a PolSci professor said to me, the real threat to the US is not the USSR, it's the Third World.
> 
> 2013, I'm seeing that as having come pretty much true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The USSR failed because communism is an economic system that does not work.
> 
> Sadly, America and much of the West resembles the USSR more every day.
Click to expand...


boy you aint kidding.so very true.ESPECIALLY the last setence.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, I read your posts and have to conclude you are a borderline retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about economic improvement and you were discussing abortion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you were insisting China's growth has been due to Capitalism, when in fact, nothing of the sort is true.  The fact the right wing sees China as a model of even greater corporate exploitation of working folks is kind of fuckin' scary.
> 
> But the Corporatists can't move American jobs over there fast enough, despite the bad treatment of workers, shitty quality and environmental degradation.
Click to expand...


- "It's glorious to get rich." - Deng Xiaopeng, Communist leader of China. 

- "The rich are parasites.  The 1% are the enemy.  Beat you ex-boss with a baseball bat if he fires you. Hang CEOs who outsource." - JoeB131, "Republican."


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from you oldstlye.



I can only assume that having your head up your ass as much as you typically do...is what has led to this fart fetish of yours?


----------



## Oldstyle

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about economic improvement and you were discussing abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you were insisting China's growth has been due to Capitalism, when in fact, nothing of the sort is true.  The fact the right wing sees China as a model of even greater corporate exploitation of working folks is kind of fuckin' scary.
> 
> But the Corporatists can't move American jobs over there fast enough, despite the bad treatment of workers, shitty quality and environmental degradation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - "It's glorious to get rich." - Deng Xiaopeng, Communist leader of China.
> 
> - "The rich are parasites.  The 1% are the enemy.  Beat you ex-boss with a baseball bat if he fires you. Hang CEOs who outsource." - JoeB131, "Republican."
Click to expand...


It's obvious that Joe has some "anger issues" with an ex-boss that let him go...some SERIOUS anger issues!


----------



## Toro

Oldstyle said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you were insisting China's growth has been due to Capitalism, when in fact, nothing of the sort is true.  The fact the right wing sees China as a model of even greater corporate exploitation of working folks is kind of fuckin' scary.
> 
> But the Corporatists can't move American jobs over there fast enough, despite the bad treatment of workers, shitty quality and environmental degradation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - "It's glorious to get rich." - Deng Xiaopeng, Communist leader of China.
> 
> - "The rich are parasites.  The 1% are the enemy.  Beat you ex-boss with a baseball bat if he fires you. Hang CEOs who outsource." - JoeB131, "Republican."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious that Joe has some "anger issues" with an ex-boss that let him go...some SERIOUS anger issues!
Click to expand...


It's not just with an ex-boss.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> The GOP "stole" the election in 2000?  You're one of the naive ones that actually buys that nonsense, Joe?  Al Gore didn't even carry his home State of Tennessee.  The people that know him best voted for the other guy.  The rest of your rant is equally flawed.  We got war because Islamic terrorists flew planes loaded with innocent civilians into targets here in the United States...an act that would have taken place no matter WHO was President.  It was a war that Democrats supported almost as much as Republicans!  As for the 10% unemployment rate?  That took place after Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's badly conceived "stimulus" failed miserably.  How can someone who claims to be a history major be so oblivious to what took place in history?



1) Who carried TN is irrelevant.  Gore got more votes in the country as a whole, and he probably got more in Florida.  He would have gotten more if Jeb Bush hadn't engaged in voter suppression. 

2) I'm sorry, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11. Exactly?  Afghanistan didn't really attack us, either.  They guy who was responsible just happened to be there, and instead of extraditing him, we decided to take sides in a 30 year civil war.  So. No. Bush got us into wars we didn't need to be in. 

3) Sorry, we hit 10% unemployment long before a single dollar of stimulus was spent. After that it went down. (Oct 2009).  We can thank your boy Bush for that one 

4) I'm really trying to convince my self you aren't retarded, but you're giving me nothing to work with.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Moderate social programs?  Greece?  Did you REALLY just make that claim?  God, Joe...you keep showing your knowledge of world events to be paper thin.  You seem to think that Greece's problems would be *solved *if they could just print their own money which is laughable.



Yeah, guy, I know you see a starving child and see progress, but those of us with humanity don't. 

You know when I started to lose faith in the GOP?  It's when it became such a mean-spirited philosophy.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [
> 
> - "It's glorious to get rich." - Deng Xiaopeng, Communist leader of China.
> 
> - "The rich are parasites.  The 1% are the enemy.  Beat you ex-boss with a baseball bat if he fires you. Hang CEOs who outsource." - JoeB131, "Republican."



This would be the same Deng who ran over college students with Tanks when the asked for the same things we take for granted. 

Interesting heroes you have, Toro....


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> - "It's glorious to get rich." - Deng Xiaopeng, Communist leader of China.
> 
> - "The rich are parasites.  The 1% are the enemy.  Beat you ex-boss with a baseball bat if he fires you. Hang CEOs who outsource." - JoeB131, "Republican."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that Joe has some "anger issues" with an ex-boss that let him go...some SERIOUS anger issues!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just with an ex-boss.
Click to expand...


Guy, if I'm pissed off you someone, they PROBABLY did something pretty shitty.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> - "It's glorious to get rich." - Deng Xiaopeng, Communist leader of China.
> 
> - "The rich are parasites.  The 1% are the enemy.  Beat you ex-boss with a baseball bat if he fires you. Hang CEOs who outsource." - JoeB131, "Republican."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be the same Deng who ran over college students with Tanks when the asked for the same things we take for granted.
> 
> Interesting heroes you have, Toro....
Click to expand...

Do you enjoy getting bitch-slapped?


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always skeptical about the history of former Republican posters who openly advocate for Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of people who live though the biggest failure of the last century and then still try to claim they have good ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The communist parties in Europe are an excellent example. They garnered 15% in the Czech elections last weekend which means idiots like Joe are out there and voting. Whew!
Click to expand...


I'm surprised they garnered that much, given Czech history....  

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.  

Guy, I'm an AMerican.  We dont have communists here... get it?


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> - "It's glorious to get rich." - Deng Xiaopeng, Communist leader of China.
> 
> - "The rich are parasites.  The 1% are the enemy.  Beat you ex-boss with a baseball bat if he fires you. Hang CEOs who outsource." - JoeB131, "Republican."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be the same Deng who ran over college students with Tanks when the asked for the same things we take for granted.
> 
> Interesting heroes you have, Toro....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you enjoy getting bitch-slapped?
Click to expand...


Well, if Toro ever did that, not really. 

Mostly he just whines because I don't love big corporations...


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of people who live though the biggest failure of the last century and then still try to claim they have good ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> The communist parties in Europe are an excellent example. They garnered 15% in the Czech elections last weekend which means idiots like Joe are out there and voting. Whew!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm surprised they garnered that much, given Czech history....
> 
> But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
> 
> Guy, I'm an AMerican.  We dont have communists here... get it?
Click to expand...


Oh...yeah GUY...we have lots of communists here.  The democrat party is full of them...and the guy in the White House just might be one....



> Socialists in the U.S. Congress
> A list of seventy alleged American Socialist Party members has been winging its way around the internet.
> 
> Unfortunately, while most of those listed are indeed socialists, there is no such organization as the American Socialist Party. There is a small Socialist Party USA and the U.S.'s largest Marxist organization Democratic Socialists of America - which works largely inside the Democratic Party.
> 
> The list actually appears to be a membership roster of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
> 
> 
> This organization was formed in 1991 by openly socialist independent Congressman Bernie Sanders, the far left Institute for Policy Studies, and Democratic Socialists of America.
> 
> Because the Progressive Caucus was hosted for many years on the D.S.A. website, some have claimed that all Progressive Caucus membership D.S.A. membership are synonymous. That may possibly have been the case, in the early years, but I have seen no evidence that it still applies.
> 
> What is beyond doubt is that most Progressive Caucus members are indeed socialists. In a European country, most would be comfortable in either the Socialist, Communist or green parties.
> 
> Several current or former Progressive Caucus members appear to have been members of D.S.A. including Neil Abercrombie, Danny K. Davis, Ron Dellums, Jerry Nadler and Major Owens.
> 
> Some members like Barbara Lee and Luis Gutierrez have been involved in Marxist-Leninist parties.
> 
> Many others have ties to D.S.A., the Communist Party USA, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, the Institute for Policy Studies, or other far left groups.
> 
> Many also have maintained ties to Cuba, Venezuela, Saddam Hussein's Iraq or other anti U.S. regimes.
> 
> Prominent recent former members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus include Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Obama's Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Obama Transition Team member and former Democratic Party whip, David Bonior. Since leaving the house, David Bonior has formally joined D.S.A.
> 
> At more than 70 members, the Progressive Caucus is the most powerful bloc in the U.S. Congress, leading several powerful committees, including Judiciary (John Conyers) and until recently, Ways & Means (Charles Rangel).
> 
> It is also important to note that many far left Senators and Congressmen and NOT members of the Progressive Caucus - Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa and Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy (one time D.S.A. member) from Ohio being good examples.
> 
> If you follow the blue links on this page it will lead you to biographies of all those listed on this post, from our sister site KeyWiki - our online encyclopedia of the American left. The KeyWiki Congressional Progressive Caucus page also lists former members of the organization.
> 
> Many profiles are still only only "stubs", but some are comprehensive. We welcome contributions from readers to "flesh them out". We also welcome more volunteer KeyWiki editors and contributors. Contact details here
> 
> Check out the socialists in your Congress!
> 
> The current members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are as follows:
> 
> Co-Chairs
> 
> * Raul Grijalva (AZ-07)
> * Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
> 
> Vice Chairs
> 
> * Diane Watson (CA-33)
> * Keith Ellison (MN-05)
> * Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
> * Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
> * Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
> * Donna Edwards (MD-04)
> * Alan Grayson (FL-08)
> 
> Senate Members
> 
> * Bernie Sanders (VT)
> * Tom Udall (NM)
> * Roland Burris (IL)
> 
> House Members
> 
> * Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
> * Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
> * Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
> * Robert Brady (PA-01)
> * Corrine Brown (FL-03)
> * Michael Capuano (MA-08)
> * André Carson (IN-07)
> * Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
> * Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
> * William (Lacy) Clay (MO-01)
> * Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
> * Steve Cohen (TN-09)
> * John Conyers (MI-14)
> * Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
> * Danny Davis (IL-07)
> * Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
> * Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
> * Sam Farr (CA-17)
> * Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
> * Bob Filner (CA-51)
> * Barney Frank (MA-04)
> * Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
> * Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
> * John Hall (NY-19)
> * Phil Hare (IL-17)
> * Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
> * Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
> * Michael Honda (CA-15)
> * Jesse Jackson Jr (IL-02)
> * Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
> * Hank Johnson (GA-04)
> * Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
> * Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
> * Barbara Lee (CA-09)
> * John Lewis (GA-05)
> * David Loebsack (IA-02)
> * Ben Lujan (NM-3)
> * Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
> * Edward Markey (MA-07)
> * Jim McDermott (WA-07)
> * James McGovern (MA-03)
> * George Miller (CA-07)
> * Gwen Moore (WI-04)
> * Jim Moran (VA-08)
> * Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
> * Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL)
> * John Olver (MA-01)
> * Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
> * Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
> * Donald Payne (NJ-10)
> * Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
> * Jared Polis (CO-02)
> * Charles Rangel (NY-15)
> * Laura Richardson (CA-37)
> * Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
> * Bobby Rush (IL-01)
> * Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
> * Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
> * José Serrano (NY-16)
> * Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
> * Pete Stark (CA-13)
> * Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
> * John Tierney (MA-06)
> * Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
> * Maxine Waters (CA-35)
> * Mel Watt (NC-12)
> * Henry Waxman (CA-30)
> * Peter Welch (VT-AL)
> 
> Every effort should be made to vote out as many as possible CPCers in the November mid term elections.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Does the word 'sustainable' have multiple meanings?  It is not a trick question.
> 
> Chris Hedges puts it rather well with this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just might take up drinking...a lot of drinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Chris Hedges.
> 
> Here's the problem.  There's plenty of work to be done in this country.  Just simply put, the rich don't want to pay the working man a fair wage to do it.
> 
> They'd rather automate, outsource, offshore or otherwise find a way not to.
> 
> That's what unsustainable.
> 
> Plutocracy always fails... and what follows is often pretty bad.
Click to expand...


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the word 'sustainable' have multiple meanings?  It is not a trick question.
> 
> Chris Hedges puts it rather well with this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just might take up drinking...a lot of drinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Chris Hedges.
> 
> Here's the problem.  There's plenty of work to be done in this country.  Just simply put, the rich don't want to pay the working man a fair wage to do it.
> 
> They'd rather automate, outsource, offshore or otherwise find a way not to.
> 
> That's what unsustainable.
> 
> Plutocracy always fails... and what follows is often pretty bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah its those damn rich people...all while behind the curtain, the government is the main culprit screwing you and most Americans, but you can't see that.  Why?
Click to expand...


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would be the same Deng who ran over college students with Tanks when the asked for the same things we take for granted.
> 
> Interesting heroes you have, Toro....
> 
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy getting bitch-slapped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if Toro ever did that, not really.
> 
> Mostly he just whines because I don't love big corporations...
Click to expand...


I don't whine about anything.

I just point out that you're a bigot who advocates violence and has serious anger management problems.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The GOP "stole" the election in 2000?  You're one of the naive ones that actually buys that nonsense, Joe?  Al Gore didn't even carry his home State of Tennessee.  The people that know him best voted for the other guy.  The rest of your rant is equally flawed.  We got war because Islamic terrorists flew planes loaded with innocent civilians into targets here in the United States...an act that would have taken place no matter WHO was President.  It was a war that Democrats supported almost as much as Republicans!  As for the 10% unemployment rate?  That took place after Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's badly conceived "stimulus" failed miserably.  How can someone who claims to be a history major be so oblivious to what took place in history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Who carried TN is irrelevant.  Gore got more votes in the country as a whole, and he probably got more in Florida.  He would have gotten more if Jeb Bush hadn't engaged in voter suppression.
> 
> 2) I'm sorry, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11. Exactly?  Afghanistan didn't really attack us, either.  They guy who was responsible just happened to be there, and instead of extraditing him, we decided to take sides in a 30 year civil war.  So. No. Bush got us into wars we didn't need to be in.
> 
> 3) Sorry, we hit 10% unemployment long before a single dollar of stimulus was spent. After that it went down. (Oct 2009).  We can thank your boy Bush for that one
> 
> 4) I'm really trying to convince my self you aren't retarded, but you're giving me nothing to work with.
Click to expand...


Gore's people tried counting and recounting and then counting the Florida votes AGAIN...and they *STILL* couldn't work out a way to have Al come out on top.  Jeb Bush did *not* engage in voter suppression.  The only voter suppression that took place during that election cycle in Florida was the main stream media calling the race before the polls closed in the conservative Panhandle section of the State (different time zone that the rest of Florida) which caused many Republican voters to not vote.  

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  We went into Iraq because a sadistic dictator refused to abide by the sanctions he had agreed at the close to the First Gulf War.

Osama bin Laden just "happened" to be in Afghanistan?  Did you really just say that?  The Taliban were running Afghanistan and the Taliban were supporting Al Queda.  Extradite him?  Are you kidding?  We demanded that Afghanistan extradite Bin Laden and expel Al Queda and the Taliban refused saying there was not enough "evidence" that he was behind the attacks.  Mind you that this was AFTER Osama bin Laden had gone public taking credit for the 9/11 attacks.  Bush did what needed to be done.

As for when unemployment hit 10%?  The Obama stimulus was passed as one of the first pieces of legislation of the Obama Presidency on Feb 19th of 2009.  Unemployment hit 10% in October of 2009 a full 8 months after the stimulus was passed.  So you are claiming that not a dollar of the stimulus was spent in that 8 month period?  Gotta tell you, Joe...for a self proclaimed history major you have an awful tendency to get your history completely WRONG!  

You might want to hold off on the "retarded" insults until you make a post that shows some intelligence...just saying...


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Yeah its those damn rich people...all while behind the curtain, the government is the main culprit screwing you and most Americans, but you can't see that.  Why?



Probably because I've never been screwed by government.  In fact, government has been pretty good to me.  Paid for my college, taught me a trade in the miitary, helped me buy a house through the VA, not to mention providing thousands of needed services to make a civilized society work seemlessly. 

I have been screwed by rich people.  I can honestly say most of my setbacks in life have usually involved a rich person capriously throwing an obstacle in my way because they could. 

So seriously. Fuck the rich. Tax them, regulate them, villify them.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Gore's people tried counting and recounting and then counting the Florida votes AGAIN...and they *STILL* couldn't work out a way to have Al come out on top.  Jeb Bush did *not* engage in voter suppression.  The only voter suppression that took place during that election cycle in Florida was the main stream media calling the race before the polls closed in the conservative Panhandle section of the State (different time zone that the rest of Florida) which caused many Republican voters to not vote.
> 
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  We went into Iraq because a sadistic dictator refused to abide by the sanctions he had agreed at the close to the First Gulf War.
> 
> Osama bin Laden just "happened" to be in Afghanistan?  Did you really just say that?  The Taliban were running Afghanistan and the Taliban were supporting Al Queda.  Extradite him?  Are you kidding?  We demanded that Afghanistan extradite Bin Laden and expel Al Queda and the Taliban refused saying there was not enough "evidence" that he was behind the attacks.  Mind you that this was AFTER Osama bin Laden had gone public taking credit for the 9/11 attacks.  Bush did what needed to be done.
> 
> As for when unemployment hit 10%?  The Obama stimulus was passed as one of the first pieces of legislation of the Obama Presidency on Feb 19th of 2009.  Unemployment hit 10% in October of 2009 a full 8 months after the stimulus was passed.  So you are claiming that not a dollar of the stimulus was spent in that 8 month period?  Gotta tell you, Joe...for a self proclaimed history major you have an awful tendency to get your history completely WRONG!
> 
> You might want to hold off on the "retarded" insults until you make a post that shows some intelligence...just saying...



Corky, I honestly have to conclude you are some kind of inbred retard who listens to talk radio all day. 

1) There was never a complete count of Florida.  Most counties didn't bother with a complete recound and just resubmitted the same numbers. Then there was a count of four counties, and Cruella or whatever her name was refused to count one of them. Another mobs of Republicans refused to let them count.  Then the Supreme Court of Florida demanded a COMPLETE recount, which SCOTUS put a stop to.   In short, the election was stolen. 

But let's leave that to the side for the moment. Was is not in dispute is that a majority of AMERICANS voted for Gore.  Gore got more votes nationally. Bush tried to win on a technicality after working the refs. He didn't win on his own merits.  Most Americans didn't want him.  They knew he was an idiot.  

2) The only reason we went into Iraq was Bush claimed that they had WMD's (they didn't) and they were pals with Al Qaeda (they weren't.) 

3) Stimulus was broken up into three parts, most of it spent in 2010, very little spent in 2009.  While it passed in Feb 2009, it didn't take effect until later.  Thanks to Bush, the Economy was shedding half a million jobs a month.   It should also be pointed out that Stimulus was mostly tax cuts and payments to states.  It was completely inadequate to the task.  

4) Sorry, man, Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan in 2001.  But yet we are still there, propping up drug dealer Karzai...  It's like taking over management of a crack house after the drug dealers left.   Truly, we could have gotten a lot more done with drone strikes and special forces teams, which is eventually what we ended up doing in other places anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy getting bitch-slapped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Toro ever did that, not really.
> 
> Mostly he just whines because I don't love big corporations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't whine about anything.
> 
> I just point out that you're a bigot who advocates violence and has serious anger management problems.
Click to expand...


i don't have anger management problems. 

Most people have the good sense NOT TO PISS ME OFF!!! 

I'm also pretty forgiving.  If someone wrongs me but is apologetic and makes up for it, I usually forgive.


----------



## editec

Boy this thread sure has topic drifted away from its original point hasn't it?

I mean are we ever going to get back to the issue of how big an asshole Regan was, or not?

​


----------



## JoeB131

editec said:


> Boy this thread sure has topic drifted away from its original point hasn't it?
> 
> I mean are we ever going to get back to the issue of how big an asshole Regan was, or not?
> 
> ​



Oh, yeah. reagan won the Cold War.  really. With a speech.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Toro ever did that, not really.
> 
> Mostly he just whines because I don't love big corporations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't whine about anything.
> 
> I just point out that you're a bigot who advocates violence and has serious anger management problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't have anger management problems.
> 
> Most people have the good sense NOT TO PISS ME OFF!!!
> 
> I'm also pretty forgiving.  If someone wrongs me but is apologetic and makes up for it, I usually forgive.
Click to expand...

Do you really think people are afraid of your whining?! It's annoying for sure, but you make it sound like their fear could be physical. Big words for someone who's bosses took him to the woodshed on seemingly countless occasions.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Gore's people tried counting and recounting and then counting the Florida votes AGAIN...and they *STILL* couldn't work out a way to have Al come out on top.  Jeb Bush did *not* engage in voter suppression.  The only voter suppression that took place during that election cycle in Florida was the main stream media calling the race before the polls closed in the conservative Panhandle section of the State (different time zone that the rest of Florida) which caused many Republican voters to not vote.
> 
> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  We went into Iraq because a sadistic dictator refused to abide by the sanctions he had agreed at the close to the First Gulf War.
> 
> Osama bin Laden just "happened" to be in Afghanistan?  Did you really just say that?  The Taliban were running Afghanistan and the Taliban were supporting Al Queda.  Extradite him?  Are you kidding?  We demanded that Afghanistan extradite Bin Laden and expel Al Queda and the Taliban refused saying there was not enough "evidence" that he was behind the attacks.  Mind you that this was AFTER Osama bin Laden had gone public taking credit for the 9/11 attacks.  Bush did what needed to be done.
> 
> As for when unemployment hit 10%?  The Obama stimulus was passed as one of the first pieces of legislation of the Obama Presidency on Feb 19th of 2009.  Unemployment hit 10% in October of 2009 a full 8 months after the stimulus was passed.  So you are claiming that not a dollar of the stimulus was spent in that 8 month period?  Gotta tell you, Joe...for a self proclaimed history major you have an awful tendency to get your history completely WRONG!
> 
> You might want to hold off on the "retarded" insults until you make a post that shows some intelligence...just saying...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corky, I honestly have to conclude you are some kind of inbred retard who listens to talk radio all day.
> 
> 1) There was never a complete count of Florida.  Most counties didn't bother with a complete recound and just resubmitted the same numbers. Then there was a count of four counties, and Cruella or whatever her name was refused to count one of them. Another mobs of Republicans refused to let them count.  Then the Supreme Court of Florida demanded a COMPLETE recount, which SCOTUS put a stop to.   In short, the election was stolen.
> 
> But let's leave that to the side for the moment. Was is not in dispute is that a majority of AMERICANS voted for Gore.  Gore got more votes nationally. Bush tried to win on a technicality after working the refs. He didn't win on his own merits.  Most Americans didn't want him.  They knew he was an idiot.
> 
> 2) The only reason we went into Iraq was Bush claimed that they had WMD's (they didn't) and they were pals with Al Qaeda (they weren't.)
> 
> 3) Stimulus was broken up into three parts, most of it spent in 2010, very little spent in 2009.  While it passed in Feb 2009, it didn't take effect until later.  Thanks to Bush, the Economy was shedding half a million jobs a month.   It should also be pointed out that Stimulus was mostly tax cuts and payments to states.  It was completely inadequate to the task.
> 
> 4) Sorry, man, Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan in 2001.  But yet we are still there, propping up drug dealer Karzai...  It's like taking over management of a crack house after the drug dealers left.   Truly, we could have gotten a lot more done with drone strikes and special forces teams, which is eventually what we ended up doing in other places anyway.
Click to expand...


Supporters of Al Gore have tried over the years to come up with a scenario where their guy *won* Florida, Joe and whine incessantly that the election was "stolen" from them.  The truth of the matter is that if voters in the Panhandle hadn't been encouraged to not vote because the State race was called in Gore's favor before the polls closed the race most likely wouldn't have been as close as it ultimately was.  The ironic thing about the election is that a poorly designed "butterfly" ballot (which was the work of a Democrat to make the ballot larger and easier to see for elderly voters in Palm Beach County) led to votes being cast for Pat Buchanon that most likely would have been cast for Gore.  That wasn't something done by Republicans however...it was the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.  As for Americans not wanting Bush because he won the electoral college and not the popular vote?  That's the way our system works.  Deal with it.  The fact that Bush was reelected four years later belies your point that he wasn't wanted by Americans.

Iraq did indeed have WMD's because they used them in the past against both their own people and the Iranians.  This notion that because we never found WMD's that they didn't exist is rather fanciful.  We never knew Libya had nuclear research facilities hidden in the desert until Ghadafi volunteered their whereabouts.  Does that mean they didn't exist?  The truth of the matter is that Iraq had found ways to get around UN sanctions and was beginning the process of rearming itself by secretly selling oil to nations like France and Russia in return for arms.  It *was* seeking yellow cake in Africa and only the truly naive would see that as a benign thing.

I thought you said that *zero *stimulus money was spent before unemployment went to 10%, Joe!  Now you're walking that claim back after I showed you how ridiculous it was?  Over the eight months from when the Obama Stimulus was passed until unemployment hit 10%, hundreds of millions of dollars from the stimulus was spent.

Al Queda fled Afghanistan for one reason...we went into Afghanistan and drove them out.  If we hadn't they would still be there and Osama bin Laden would have probably continued his active plotting against the United States instead of being forced to hide in Pakistan.

Funny how the "retarded" guy always has an easy response to your wildly inaccurate portrayals of what has occurred in the past, Joe.  Would that be you resorting to insults because you can't hold up your end of the debate?


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if Toro ever did that, not really.
> 
> Mostly he just whines because I don't love big corporations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't whine about anything.
> 
> I just point out that you're a bigot who advocates violence and has serious anger management problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't have anger management problems.
> 
> Most people have the good sense NOT TO PISS ME OFF!!!
> 
> I'm also pretty forgiving.  If someone wrongs me but is apologetic and makes up for it, I usually forgive.
Click to expand...


If you don't have anger issues, Joe then why would people show good sense to NOT PISS YOU OFF?  It's quite obvious that you do *indeed* have anger issues.  You think that you've been unfairly treated by ex-bosses and display a simmering hatred for *them* and all other people who own businesses.  You're the type of guy that shows up at work with an Uzi because someone else got promoted instead of you.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Yeah its those damn rich people...all while behind the curtain, the government is the main culprit screwing you and most Americans, but you can't see that.  Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because I've never been screwed by government.  In fact, government has been pretty good to me.  Paid for my college, taught me a trade in the miitary, helped me buy a house through the VA, not to mention providing thousands of needed services to make a civilized society work seemlessly.
> 
> I have been screwed by rich people.  I can honestly say most of my setbacks in life have usually involved a rich person capriously throwing an obstacle in my way because they could.
> 
> So seriously. Fuck the rich. Tax them, regulate them, villify them.
Click to expand...


You are not informed if you fail to recognize the heinous nature of big uncontrolled government.

You are also a bigot due to your illogical hatred of wealthy people.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> []Do you really think people are afraid of your whining?! It's annoying for sure, but you make it sound like their fear could be physical. Big words for someone who's bosses took him to the woodshed on seemingly countless occasions.



You're so brave you're hiding on the other side of the planet... chickenshit... 

Most people have the good sense not to get on my bad side. 

And, yeah, my last boss paid me $10,000 not to sue him.... so there was that.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> You are not informed if you fail to recognize the heinous nature of big uncontrolled government.
> 
> You are also a bigot due to your illogical hatred of wealthy people.



Actually, I have a very logical hatred of the wealthy.  They are too fucking greedy and they cause too much misery in the world.  

Sorry, man, just not seeing the government as a problem. The biggest problem with government is that it tends to give us what we want.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> If you don't have anger issues, Joe then why would people show good sense to NOT PISS YOU OFF?  It's quite obvious that you do *indeed* have anger issues.  You think that you've been unfairly treated by ex-bosses and display a simmering hatred for *them* and all other people who own businesses.  You're the type of guy that shows up at work with an Uzi because someone else got promoted instead of you.



I have a simmering hatred for the stupidity that passes for modern business.  you know, there's a reason why _Dilbert_ is the most popular comic strip. We've all worked in that office. 

These fuckers would HAPPILY kill us all to make a profit.  

I.E. Global Warming. Going to kill us all, but as long as someone makes a profit, who cares, right?  

At least my anger is directed in the right direction.


----------



## Dot Com

we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.


----------



## JoeB131

Dot Com said:


> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.



Unfortunately... 

But they couldn't do it without useful idiots like DogStyle who think the real problem is the rest of us don't work hard enough to make the rich wealthier...


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately...
> 
> But they couldn't do it without useful idiots like DogStyle who think the real problem is the rest of us don't work hard enough to make the rich wealthier...
Click to expand...


exactly  Poor people are just lazy  Kasich called out the Repubs on this ginormous mischaracterization/war on the poor as well.


GOP GOVERNOR: 'There Seems To Be A War On The Poor' With Republicans In Washington


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately...
> 
> But they couldn't do it without useful idiots like DogStyle who think the real problem is the rest of us don't work hard enough to make the rich wealthier...
Click to expand...


Don't look now but someone's been taking a beating in this string and is now resorting to name calling...

Don't post nonsense if you can't handle being called on it, Joe...


----------



## Oldstyle

Unlike you, Joe...I don't feel the need to take away things from somebody else in order to be successful and I'm not jealous of folks that have more than I.  You view a big government redistributing wealth as a good thing.  I see it as the beginning of the end of what made America great.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately...
> 
> But they couldn't do it without useful idiots like DogStyle who think the real problem is the rest of us don't work hard enough to make the rich wealthier...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> exactly  Poor people are just lazy  Kasich called out the Repubs on this ginormous mischaracterization/war on the poor as well.
> 
> 
> GOP GOVERNOR: 'There Seems To Be A War On The Poor' With Republicans In Washington
Click to expand...


The people who are lazy are the ones who want government handouts to enable them to have a lifestyle they haven't earned.  I was raised to respect anyone who works hard...and that goes for the poor AND the rich.  I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for able bodied people who don't have any ambition...don't work hard...but think it's "fair" to take from those people who do have ambition and have worked hard.


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.



From what I see Obama sold himself for a shit load of money.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Unlike you, Joe...I don't feel the need to take away things from somebody else in order to be successful and I'm not jealous of folks that have more than I.  You view a big government redistributing wealth as a good thing.  I see it as the beginning of the end of what made America great.



Guy, America was not great because a bunch of rich assholes exploited those who did the work.  

America became great when we freed the slaves, and had a labor movement.

It's why we have a "Memorial Day" to celebrate those who died freeing the slaves, and a "Labor Day" to celebrate those who fought for the dignity of the working man. 

We do not have a "Rich Douchebag Day" to celebrate those who starved children to buy another dressage horsie..... 

In fact, we had our greatest prosperity when FDR raised the top marginal rate to 93%, imposed a minimum wage and established social security....  EXACTLY the kind of "Communist" redistribution you bewail.  

That's when America became "Great".


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately...
> 
> But they couldn't do it without useful idiots like DogStyle who think the real problem is the rest of us don't work hard enough to make the rich wealthier...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't look now but someone's been taking a beating in this string and is now resorting to name calling...
> 
> Don't post nonsense if you can't handle being called on it, Joe...
Click to expand...


Dogstyle, when you make retarded claims like "Bush won in 2000, despite getting less votes" and "We went after Saddam because of "treaty violations'," there's really nothing left but to call you names like "Retard". 

Sadly, you are what happens when someone listens to Hate Radio all day, and is trained by the wealthy to hate those who are just a little worse off than you are.  

And frankly, I used to be the same way.  Until my last boss gave me a wakeup call, and realized the welfare person isn't my enemy.... he was.  As much as he gladhanded me and tried to pretend to be my friend.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> The people who are lazy are the ones who want government handouts to enable them to have a lifestyle they haven't earned.  I was raised to respect anyone who works hard...and that goes for the poor AND the rich.  I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for able bodied people who don't have any ambition...don't work hard...but think it's "fair" to take from those people who do have ambition and have worked hard.



And who are these people, exactly?  

Last job I had, the one where they fired me because I got sick, I was putting in 60 hours a week managing an account that netted them 20 million a year gross.  Their big complaint? With the overtime, I was netting a whopping $49K a year, when their profit margin was something like 30%.  (Incidently, the reason they lost that business. The customer knew they were being gouged.)  

Here's the thing. I would have no problem with "Workfare".  I'd have no problem finding something constructive for those on welfare to do, to give them the dignity of work. 

The problem is, of course, is your masters the Koch Brothers and their ilk would never stand for it.  Because if they couldn't constantly threaten to give your job to a welfare person, they couldn't keep you in line.  

That's why they hated it when Clinton got unemployment down to 3%.  They couldn't threaten people anymore.  Oh, man, fuck that, share with the fucking wage slaves?  Hell No. Let's steal the election and put a retard in charge. 

And dumb idiots like you said. 'Yeah, we totally need to impeach Clinton! He lied about a  BLOW JOB!!!!"


----------



## gipper

thanatos144 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I see Obama sold himself for a shit load of money.
Click to expand...


It is nothing new.  BO is very much like most of his predecessors.

To blame the wealthy, an entire class of people some of whom, work very hard, is entirely illogical.  However many wealthy people are wealthy because government has allowed them to be so, with the imposition of crony capitalism.

The blame for turning America into a bankrupt welfare/warfare oligarchy state, rests entirely in Washington DC.

And anyone who thinks big uncontrolled government is good, knows nothing of history.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I see Obama sold himself for a shit load of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is nothing new.  BO is very much like most of his predecessors.
> 
> To blame the wealthy, an entire class of people some of whom, work very hard, is entirely illogical.  However many wealthy people are wealthy because government has allowed them to be so, with the imposition of crony capitalism.
> 
> The blame for turning America into a bankrupt welfare/warfare oligarchy state, rests entirely in Washington DC.
> 
> And anyone who thinks big uncontrolled government is good, knows nothing of history.
Click to expand...


Who said govenrment should be "uncontrolled".  We have a control. It's called "elections".  

I blame the wealthy because their greed is what got us here. 

They were just fine. They had plenty of money. But that wasn't enough. They had to inflate the housing market. They had to move the good jobs oversees to someone who makes a pittance.  

Their greed got us here, and they wonder why some of us are mad.

Because unlike you, we are paying attention.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The housing collapse is a perfect example of government interference distorting and then collapsing a system. Bankers risking their own money tend to be very conservative, they won't lend to no income no assets borrowers unless the government is telling them "we will guarantee those loans for you" then you get a housing collapse


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> The housing collapse is a perfect example of government interference distorting and then collapsing a system. Bankers risking their own money tend to be very conservative, they won't lend to no income no assets borrowers unless the government is telling them "we will guarantee those loans for you" then you get a housing collapse



Except that's not how the housing collapse happened. 

The housing collapse did not happen because the CRA prevented the banks from "redlining" certain neighborhoods.  

It happened because the banks made bad loans to middle class folks buying more house than they needed, on the hope they could "Flip" that house in a few years to make a profit.  

And they did this knowing damned well a lot of these folks would default, because they knew they'd get their money back by selling to the next sucker.  

The housing collapse happened because of a LACK of government oversight.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The housing collapse is a perfect example of government interference distorting and then collapsing a system. Bankers risking their own money tend to be very conservative, they won't lend to no income no assets borrowers unless the government is telling them "we will guarantee those loans for you" then you get a housing collapse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not how the housing collapse happened.
> 
> The housing collapse did not happen because the CRA prevented the banks from "redlining" certain neighborhoods.
> 
> It happened because the banks made bad loans to middle class folks buying more house than they needed, on the hope they could "Flip" that house in a few years to make a profit.
> 
> And they did this knowing damned well a lot of these folks would default, because they knew they'd get their money back by selling to the next sucker.
> 
> The housing collapse happened because of a LACK of government oversight.
Click to expand...


What you are failing to comprehend is that government was a willing partner in the corruption.  They allowed it to happen.  No sector of our economy is more regulated than the financial sector.  Wall Street and the government are one.  The regulations were in place, they were merely ignored.

You might do a little research on Fannie and Freddie...and a guy named Franklin Raines.  Many in the D party including Dodd and Frank, who ironically passed a law named after themselves that has allowed the too big to fail banks to get bigger...and thus give lots of cash to politicians, were willing partners in the corruption...and that corruption continues unabated today.  The housing market is once again in bubble territory all thanks to the big government you so love.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The housing collapse is a perfect example of government interference distorting and then collapsing a system. Bankers risking their own money tend to be very conservative, they won't lend to no income no assets borrowers unless the government is telling them "we will guarantee those loans for you" then you get a housing collapse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not how the housing collapse happened.
> 
> The housing collapse did not happen because the CRA prevented the banks from "redlining" certain neighborhoods.
> 
> It happened because the banks made bad loans to middle class folks buying more house than they needed, on the hope they could "Flip" that house in a few years to make a profit.
> 
> And they did this knowing damned well a lot of these folks would default, because they knew they'd get their money back by selling to the next sucker.
> 
> The housing collapse happened because of a LACK of government oversight.
Click to expand...


I didn't mention CRA, is English not your first language?

I said Fannie and Freddie encouraged/coerced the banks to provide them with sub-prime mortgages


----------



## LA RAM FAN

at 8:24 am today someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The housing collapse is a perfect example of government interference distorting and then collapsing a system. Bankers risking their own money tend to be very conservative, they won't lend to no income no assets borrowers unless the government is telling them "we will guarantee those loans for you" then you get a housing collapse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that's not how the housing collapse happened.
> 
> The housing collapse did not happen because the CRA prevented the banks from "redlining" certain neighborhoods.
> 
> It happened because the banks made bad loans to middle class folks buying more house than they needed, on the hope they could "Flip" that house in a few years to make a profit.
> 
> And they did this knowing damned well a lot of these folks would default, because they knew they'd get their money back by selling to the next sucker.
> 
> The housing collapse happened because of a LACK of government oversight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are failing to comprehend is that government was a willing partner in the corruption.  They allowed it to happen.  No sector of our economy is more regulated than the financial sector.  Wall Street and the government are one.  The regulations were in place, they were merely ignored.
> 
> You might do a little research on Fannie and Freddie...and a guy named Franklin Raines.  Many in the D party including Dodd and Frank, who ironically passed a law named after themselves that has allowed the too big to fail banks to get bigger...and thus give lots of cash to politicians, were willing partners in the corruption...and that corruption continues unabated today.  The housing market is once again in bubble territory all thanks to the big government you so love.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The people who are lazy are the ones who want government handouts to enable them to have a lifestyle they haven't earned.  I was raised to respect anyone who works hard...and that goes for the poor AND the rich.  I'm sorry but I don't have any respect for able bodied people who don't have any ambition...don't work hard...but think it's "fair" to take from those people who do have ambition and have worked hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who are these people, exactly?
> 
> Last job I had, the one where they fired me because I got sick, I was putting in 60 hours a week managing an account that netted them 20 million a year gross.  Their big complaint? With the overtime, I was netting a whopping $49K a year, when their profit margin was something like 30%.  (Incidently, the reason they lost that business. The customer knew they were being gouged.)
> 
> Here's the thing. I would have no problem with "Workfare".  I'd have no problem finding something constructive for those on welfare to do, to give them the dignity of work.
> 
> The problem is, of course, is your masters the Koch Brothers and their ilk would never stand for it.  Because if they couldn't constantly threaten to give your job to a welfare person, they couldn't keep you in line.
> 
> That's why they hated it when Clinton got unemployment down to 3%.  They couldn't threaten people anymore.  Oh, man, fuck that, share with the fucking wage slaves?  Hell No. Let's steal the election and put a retard in charge.
> 
> And dumb idiots like you said. 'Yeah, we totally need to impeach Clinton! He lied about a  BLOW JOB!!!!"
Click to expand...


thats thr thing that is so extremely sick about our government is congress is so corrupt and bought off and lazy these days they wont do any REAL investigations into government corruption,especially presidents. 

It was a joke that him getting a blowjob and lying about it is what congress impeached him for when they SHOULD have been impeaching him for all those deaths that he was behind as governor of arkansas in the MENA arkansas scandal people knowing too much of his allowing the CIA to smuggle drugs into arkansas in exchange for weapons to nicuargua that both him,Bush and facist Reagan were all involved in together.

There were arkansas state troopers flowin into washington who were willing to testify about all this but our corrupt and bought off congress never called them before the floor to speak effectively shutting down any investigation into it.

He also of course escapes impeachment for his lying about the waco events saying their helicopters never fired at the compound when the films clearly show they did and then saying the davidians started the fire when the films also shows tanks shooting flames onto the compound with a flame thrower mounted on it.

Clinton only lies about the murdering of women and children and yet our corrupt congress ignores THOSE lies and instead impeached him for lying about getting a blowjob.


some great and free country this is.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, Joe...I don't feel the need to take away things from somebody else in order to be successful and I'm not jealous of folks that have more than I.  You view a big government redistributing wealth as a good thing.  I see it as the beginning of the end of what made America great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, America was not great because a bunch of rich assholes exploited those who did the work.
> 
> America became great when we freed the slaves, and had a labor movement.
> 
> It's why we have a "Memorial Day" to celebrate those who died freeing the slaves, and a "Labor Day" to celebrate those who fought for the dignity of the working man.
> 
> We do not have a "Rich Douchebag Day" to celebrate those who starved children to buy another dressage horsie.....
> 
> In fact, we had our greatest prosperity when FDR raised the top marginal rate to 93%, imposed a minimum wage and established social security....  EXACTLY the kind of "Communist" redistribution you bewail.
> 
> That's when America became "Great".
Click to expand...


Raising tax rates, imposing minimum wage and establishing social security isn't what made us prosperous, Joe.  We became "Great" because in America people were allowed to become prosperous by dint of their own ambitions and hard work.  People have been coming to America for centuries BECAUSE it was a place where you were allowed to raise your station in life and weren't trapped in a caste system.  That made America prosperous *long* before FDR was even born.

What I "bewail" is the death of the spirit that made this country prosperous.  What I "bewail" is an America where the majority is no longer ambitious or hard working.  What I "bewail" is an America where people wait for government to help them rather than helping themselves.  What I "bewail" is the gradual erosion of what made America special.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately...
> 
> But they couldn't do it without useful idiots like DogStyle who think the real problem is the rest of us don't work hard enough to make the rich wealthier...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look now but someone's been taking a beating in this string and is now resorting to name calling...
> 
> Don't post nonsense if you can't handle being called on it, Joe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogstyle, when you make retarded claims like "Bush won in 2000, despite getting less votes" and "We went after Saddam because of "treaty violations'," there's really nothing left but to call you names like "Retard".
> 
> Sadly, you are what happens when someone listens to Hate Radio all day, and is trained by the wealthy to hate those who are just a little worse off than you are.
> 
> And frankly, I used to be the same way.  Until my last boss gave me a wakeup call, and realized the welfare person isn't my enemy.... he was.  As much as he gladhanded me and tried to pretend to be my friend.
Click to expand...


Bush *did* win in 2000...just as he did again in 2004...just as Obama won in 2008...and again in 2012.  We have an electoral college.  It determines who our President will be.  It's determined that for quite some time.  Calling someone who points out that reality "retarded" is simply childish.

Who's been trained to hate, Joe...you or me?  I don't hate the poor.  Never have...never will.  You on the other hand have a seething hatred of the wealthy that seems to be based on the treatment that you received from your last boss.  You have the naive notion that redistribution of wealth will cure all ills...a notion based on what?  Revenge?  So your old boss treated you badly...get over it and move on.  This is America.  You get to choose who you work for.  For every asshole boss treating people badly there are five that understand their employees are their greatest asset and treat them right.  Go work for them...OR BETTER YET WORK FOR YOURSELF!!!


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> at 8:24 am today someone farted in here.



Since your head is still planted firmly in your posterior, 9/11...it's safe to assume that the person who farted "in here" would be you.  Duh?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

3 farts in a row from you trollstyle.


----------



## Oldstyle

"Dogstyle, calling you retarded is an insult to Retards..."  JoeB

You know what, Joe?  I've patiently responded to each of your "views" in this thread...showing why it is that I think you're wrong.  I haven't called you childish names.  You on the other hand have decided that insults are an argument.  In what way is that different than 9/11 and his "fart" comments?


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> "Dogstyle, calling you retarded is an insult to Retards..."  JoeB
> 
> You know what, Joe?  I've patiently responded to each of your "views" in this thread...showing why it is that I think you're wrong.  I haven't called you childish names.  You on the other hand have decided that insults are an argument.  In what way is that different than 9/11 and his "fart" comments?



Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dogstyle, calling you retarded is an insult to Retards..."  JoeB
> 
> You know what, Joe?  I've patiently responded to each of your "views" in this thread...showing why it is that I think you're wrong.  I haven't called you childish names.  You on the other hand have decided that insults are an argument.  In what way is that different than 9/11 and his "fart" comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, Camp but Joe has made claims that are not factually based and his interpretations of history are NOT what one would expect from a history major.  9/11 makes his fart comments because he's not intelligent enough to come back with an intelligent counter-argument.

At this point Joe has been shown to be incorrect on SO many of his contentions that he's resorted to the same childish retorts as 9/11...only with him it's labeling people as "retards" instead of talking about "farts".


----------



## Oldstyle

Quite frankly, I'm having a hard time believing Joe was a history major.  His *take* on history is so superficial and biased in it's view that it's simply not what you would expect from someone who was a student of history.  Historians understand that things are seldom black or white but tend to be shades of gray.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dogstyle, calling you retarded is an insult to Retards..."  JoeB
> 
> You know what, Joe?  I've patiently responded to each of your "views" in this thread...showing why it is that I think you're wrong.  I haven't called you childish names.  You on the other hand have decided that insults are an argument.  In what way is that different than 9/11 and his "fart" comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.
Click to expand...


I'm curious, Camp...would you point to something I've posted that would fit your description of "propaganda" or "talking points"?


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dogstyle, calling you retarded is an insult to Retards..."  JoeB
> 
> You know what, Joe?  I've patiently responded to each of your "views" in this thread...showing why it is that I think you're wrong.  I haven't called you childish names.  You on the other hand have decided that insults are an argument.  In what way is that different than 9/11 and his "fart" comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Camp but Joe has made claims that are not factually based and his interpretations of history are NOT what one would expect from a history major.  9/11 makes his fart comments because he's not intelligent enough to come back with an intelligent counter-argument.
> 
> At this point Joe has been shown to be incorrect on SO many of his contentions that he's resorted to the same childish retorts as 9/11...only with him it's labeling people as "retards" instead of talking about "farts".
Click to expand...


Well, perhaps you are being unfairly placed in the small few posters on this thread that pretty much continuously pepper this thread with insults and name calling anytime anyone makes a negative comment towards Reagan. I find your post interesting as I find Joe's interesting.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Camp but Joe has made claims that are not factually based and his interpretations of history are NOT what one would expect from a history major.  9/11 makes his fart comments because he's not intelligent enough to come back with an intelligent counter-argument.
> 
> At this point Joe has been shown to be incorrect on SO many of his contentions that he's resorted to the same childish retorts as 9/11...only with him it's labeling people as "retards" instead of talking about "farts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, perhaps you are being unfairly placed in the small few posters on this thread that pretty much continuously pepper this thread with insults and name calling anytime anyone makes a negative comment towards Reagan. I find your post interesting as I find Joe's interesting.
Click to expand...


While one could definitely call Joe's posts "interesting", Camp...I'd be hard pressed to call them informed.  He's made claims such as that communism in the USSR didn't fail because Russia still exists.  I find that to be an "interesting" claim...but totally lacking in factual basis.  I also find his claims that Cuba's experiment with communism has been successful to be amusing at best.  My amusement stems from my personal experience with Cuba and how bad the situation there has been.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Camp but Joe has made claims that are not factually based and his interpretations of history are NOT what one would expect from a history major.  9/11 makes his fart comments because he's not intelligent enough to come back with an intelligent counter-argument.
> 
> At this point Joe has been shown to be incorrect on SO many of his contentions that he's resorted to the same childish retorts as 9/11...only with him it's labeling people as "retards" instead of talking about "farts".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, perhaps you are being unfairly placed in the small few posters on this thread that pretty much continuously pepper this thread with insults and name calling anytime anyone makes a negative comment towards Reagan. I find your post interesting as I find Joe's interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While one could definitely call Joe's posts "interesting", Camp...I'd be hard pressed to call them informed.  He's made claims such as that communism in the USSR didn't fail because Russia still exists.  I find that to be an "interesting" claim...but totally lacking in factual basis.  I also find his claims that Cuba's experiment with communism has been successful to be amusing at best.  My amusement stems from my personal experience with Cuba and how bad the situation there has been.
Click to expand...


I understand Joe's meaning in both situations. Never been to Cuba, but I took his view to mean Cuba was no worse off under communism than it was under Batista. I have been to the old USSR many times since the fall of the USSR. Depending on the country, the "old USSR" influence can still be felt by Russia. So, I understand his meaning and where he is coming from on that score.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, perhaps you are being unfairly placed in the small few posters on this thread that pretty much continuously pepper this thread with insults and name calling anytime anyone makes a negative comment towards Reagan. I find your post interesting as I find Joe's interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While one could definitely call Joe's posts "interesting", Camp...I'd be hard pressed to call them informed.  He's made claims such as that communism in the USSR didn't fail because Russia still exists.  I find that to be an "interesting" claim...but totally lacking in factual basis.  I also find his claims that Cuba's experiment with communism has been successful to be amusing at best.  My amusement stems from my personal experience with Cuba and how bad the situation there has been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand Joe's meaning in both situations. Never been to Cuba, but I took his view to mean Cuba was no worse off under communism than it was under Batista. I have been to the old USSR many times since the fall of the USSR. Depending on the country, the "old USSR" influence can still be felt by Russia. So, I understand his meaning and where he is coming from on that score.
Click to expand...


You and Joe should be on the next inner tube to the Cuban Worker Paradise


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> What you are failing to comprehend is that government was a willing partner in the corruption.  They allowed it to happen.  No sector of our economy is more regulated than the financial sector.  Wall Street and the government are one.  The regulations were in place, they were merely ignored.
> 
> You might do a little research on Fannie and Freddie...and a guy named Franklin Raines.  Many in the D party including Dodd and Frank, who ironically passed a law named after themselves that has allowed the too big to fail banks to get bigger...and thus give lots of cash to politicians, were willing partners in the corruption...and that corruption continues unabated today.  The housing market is once again in bubble territory all thanks to the big government you so love.



I'm not going to waste my time playing "Seven Degrees of Barney Frank" with you.  

Yes, the banks bought off both parties.   

No, the financial sector was NOT regulated enough.  More importantly, there was no enforcement or sanctions.  

Point is, it wasn't because poor people were buying houses.  Blaming the government for not overseeing the crooks is like blaming the homeowner for not having a good enough lock on the door.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Raising tax rates, imposing minimum wage and establishing social security isn't what made us prosperous, Joe.  We became "Great" because in America people were allowed to become prosperous by dint of their own ambitions and hard work.  People have been coming to America for centuries BECAUSE it was a place where you were allowed to raise your station in life and weren't trapped in a caste system.  That made America prosperous *long* before FDR was even born.
> 
> What I "bewail" is the death of the spirit that made this country prosperous.  What I "bewail" is an America where the majority is no longer ambitious or hard working.  What I "bewail" is an America where people wait for government to help them rather than helping themselves.  What I "bewail" is the gradual erosion of what made America special.



America was a shithole before FDR, guy.   Seriously.  

It was less of a shithole than Europe was, but it was still a shithole.  

And then we got FDR that made it less of a shithole.  Then he won World War II, and made Europe and Japan less of shitholes, and people stopped coming over here from there after that.  

Frankly, what you show is that Conservatism has become a form of Stockholm syndrome.  

You are staring to empathize with your abusers.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Bush *did* win in 2000...just as he did again in 2004...just as Obama won in 2008...and again in 2012.  We have an electoral college.  It determines who our President will be.  It's determined that for quite some time.  Calling someone who points out that reality "retarded" is simply childish.
> 
> Who's been trained to hate, Joe...you or me?  I don't hate the poor.  Never have...never will.  You on the other hand have a seething hatred of the wealthy that seems to be based on the treatment that you received from your last boss.  You have the naive notion that redistribution of wealth will cure all ills...a notion based on what?  Revenge?  So your old boss treated you badly...get over it and move on.  This is America.  You get to choose who you work for.  For every asshole boss treating people badly there are five that understand their employees are their greatest asset and treat them right.  Go work for them...OR BETTER YET WORK FOR YOURSELF!!!



Guy... More Americans voted for Gore.  The fact that Bush STOLE the election is an indictment of him.  (And yes, I voted for that retarded fucker, and I'm paying for it now.) 

Decent thing- "The American people have spoken, I will respect their wishes." 

Scummy thing- "The American people have spoken, but FUCK that.  I'm going to use a technicality to take office, get us into two wars, give huge tax cuts to the rich and then totally fuck over the economy and screw everyone out of their life savings. "

We need to turn Bush and his cronies over the Hague as war criminals.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> You and Joe should be on the next inner tube to the Cuban Worker Paradise



Why, with fuckups like you, we'll have one just like it here in a few years...


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Bush *did* win in 2000...just as he did again in 2004...just as Obama won in 2008...and again in 2012.  We have an electoral college.  It determines who our President will be.  It's determined that for quite some time.  Calling someone who points out that reality "retarded" is simply childish.
> 
> Who's been trained to hate, Joe...you or me?  I don't hate the poor.  Never have...never will.  You on the other hand have a seething hatred of the wealthy that seems to be based on the treatment that you received from your last boss.  You have the naive notion that redistribution of wealth will cure all ills...a notion based on what?  Revenge?  So your old boss treated you badly...get over it and move on.  This is America.  You get to choose who you work for.  For every asshole boss treating people badly there are five that understand their employees are their greatest asset and treat them right.  Go work for them...OR BETTER YET WORK FOR YOURSELF!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy... More Americans voted for Gore.  The fact that Bush STOLE the election is an indictment of him.  (And yes, I voted for that retarded fucker, and I'm paying for it now.)
> 
> Decent thing- "The American people have spoken, I will respect their wishes."
> 
> Scummy thing- "The American people have spoken, but FUCK that.  I'm going to use a technicality to take office, get us into two wars, give huge tax cuts to the rich and then totally fuck over the economy and screw everyone out of their life savings. "
> 
> We need to turn Bush and his cronies over the Hague as war criminals.
Click to expand...


The Electoral College is hardly a "technicality", Joe.  It's part of the process that we have used to elect a President since the 1700's, a process that has provided the US with one of the most orderly transfers of power anywhere.  Bush won the election in 2000 because he won the most electoral votes and THAT is the way our system works.  The Electoral College system works but if you'd like to change that system, fine...but to sit here 13 years later STILL whining about Gore's loss in 2000 is a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Raising tax rates, imposing minimum wage and establishing social security isn't what made us prosperous, Joe.  We became "Great" because in America people were allowed to become prosperous by dint of their own ambitions and hard work.  People have been coming to America for centuries BECAUSE it was a place where you were allowed to raise your station in life and weren't trapped in a caste system.  That made America prosperous *long* before FDR was even born.
> 
> What I "bewail" is the death of the spirit that made this country prosperous.  What I "bewail" is an America where the majority is no longer ambitious or hard working.  What I "bewail" is an America where people wait for government to help them rather than helping themselves.  What I "bewail" is the gradual erosion of what made America special.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America was a shithole before FDR, guy.   Seriously.
> 
> It was less of a shithole than Europe was, but it was still a shithole.
> 
> And then we got FDR that made it less of a shithole.  Then he won World War II, and made Europe and Japan less of shitholes, and people stopped coming over here from there after that.
> 
> Frankly, what you show is that Conservatism has become a form of Stockholm syndrome.
> 
> You are staring to empathize with your abusers.
Click to expand...


If America was a "shithole" before FDR...then why were millions of people leaving their homelands to move here?  How do you explain the mass migrations of people to the US that took place all through the 1800's and early 1900's?  In 1790 we had a population of a little less than 4 million people.  A mere hundred years later that population had grown to almost 63 million.  By 1930 it was up to 123 million.  People don't move to "shitholes", Joe...and your contention that the US was one is absurd.

Just one more example of you spouting nonsense because you're so blinded by hatred of anyone who's successful.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [quot
> 
> The Electoral College is hardly a "technicality", Joe.  It's part of the process that we have used to elect a President since the 1700's, a process that has provided the US with one of the most orderly transfers of power anywhere.  Bush won the election in 2000 because he won the most electoral votes and THAT is the way our system works.  The Electoral College system works but if you'd like to change that system, fine...but to sit here 13 years later STILL whining about Gore's loss in 2000 is a waste of everyone's time.



The Electoral College is SHIT. Its a horrible system that distorts democracy, and gives us terrible results.  

Sweet evil Jesus, man, even Richard Nixon didn't do what Bush did.  In 1960, he could have insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities in IL and TX, but he didn't. He respected MORE PEOPLE voted for JFK.  What does it say that Bush has less honor than Tricky Dick?  

the result of Bush's theft 13 years later is that the country is a wreck. We've lost our prosperity and our honor.  And frankly, if anyone should be concerned, it should be Republicans. Bush destroyed your national brand.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> If America was a "shithole" before FDR...then why were millions of people leaving their homelands to move here?  How do you explain the mass migrations of people to the US that took place all through the 1800's and early 1900's?  In 1790 we had a population of a little less than 4 million people.  A mere hundred years later that population had grown to almost 63 million.  By 1930 it was up to 123 million.  People don't move to "shitholes", Joe...and your contention that the US was one is absurd.
> 
> Just one more example of you spouting nonsense because you're so blinded by hatred of anyone who's successful.



Dogstyle, go back and read what I said about Europe being worse shitholes. 

It should be pointed out that a LOT of people who came here went back the minute they figured out they had been had.  For instance, about half the Italians who immigrated here between 1900 and 1940 went back as soon as they figured out they had been had.  

Please, guy, America became great not because a few rich assholes exploited slaves and immigrants, the good old days the GOP wants to take us back to. It became great when we said, 'Hey, the promise of AMerica needs to apply to everyone." 

And once, both Republicans and Democrats used to get that.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> If America was a "shithole" before FDR...then why were millions of people leaving their homelands to move here?  How do you explain the mass migrations of people to the US that took place all through the 1800's and early 1900's?  In 1790 we had a population of a little less than 4 million people.  A mere hundred years later that population had grown to almost 63 million.  By 1930 it was up to 123 million.  People don't move to "shitholes", Joe...and your contention that the US was one is absurd.
> 
> Just one more example of you spouting nonsense because you're so blinded by hatred of anyone who's successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogstyle, go back and read what I said about Europe being worse shitholes.
> 
> It should be pointed out that a LOT of people who came here went back the minute they figured out they had been had.  For instance, about half the Italians who immigrated here between 1900 and 1940 went back as soon as they figured out they had been had.
> 
> Please, guy, America became great not because a few rich assholes exploited slaves and immigrants, the good old days the GOP wants to take us back to. It became great when we said, 'Hey, the promise of AMerica needs to apply to everyone."
> 
> And once, both Republicans and Democrats used to get that.
Click to expand...

Just because you live in a shit hole does not mean the rest of the country does. You can get a passport and travel easily, unlike you Soviet and Cuban comrades of yore. Go someplace else you can enjoy the livestock, just don't try to pollute their gene pool. A lot of fat gypsies in Eastern Europe, feel free there.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> [Just because you live in a shit hole does not mean the rest of the country does. You can get a passport and travel easily, unlike you Soviet and Cuban comrades of yore. Go someplace else you can enjoy the livestock, just don't try to pollute their gene pool. A lot of fat gypsies in Eastern Europe, feel free there.



Guy, unlike the Eastern European Whorehouse you live in, I live in the third largest city in the US and the most prosperous city in the midwest.  

My City... 







your city...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Raising tax rates, imposing minimum wage and establishing social security isn't what made us prosperous, Joe.  We became "Great" because in America people were allowed to become prosperous by dint of their own ambitions and hard work.  People have been coming to America for centuries BECAUSE it was a place where you were allowed to raise your station in life and weren't trapped in a caste system.  That made America prosperous *long* before FDR was even born.
> 
> What I "bewail" is the death of the spirit that made this country prosperous.  What I "bewail" is an America where the majority is no longer ambitious or hard working.  What I "bewail" is an America where people wait for government to help them rather than helping themselves.  What I "bewail" is the gradual erosion of what made America special.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America was a shithole before FDR, guy.   Seriously.
> 
> It was less of a shithole than Europe was, but it was still a shithole.
> 
> And then we got FDR that made it less of a shithole.  Then he won World War II, and made Europe and Japan less of shitholes, and people stopped coming over here from there after that.
> 
> Frankly, what you show is that Conservatism has become a form of Stockholm syndrome.
> 
> You are staring to empathize with your abusers.
Click to expand...


No unemployment, people buying cars, people having money....was a shithole compared to 7 straight years of 20% Average unemployment????


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Just because you live in a shit hole does not mean the rest of the country does. You can get a passport and travel easily, unlike you Soviet and Cuban comrades of yore. Go someplace else you can enjoy the livestock, just don't try to pollute their gene pool. A lot of fat gypsies in Eastern Europe, feel free there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, unlike the Eastern European Whorehouse you live in, I live in the third largest city in the US and the most prosperous city in the midwest.
> 
> My City...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your city...
Click to expand...

Your point?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> No unemployment, people buying cars, people having money....was a shithole compared to 7 straight years of 20% Average unemployment????



Guy, correcting your ignorance of history would be a full time job.  

You do realize that few people owned cars in the 1920's, right?  

That we had race riots and people were so panicked by the immigrants that were coming here that they all joined the fucking Ku Klux Klan...  

Hey there's a reason why there are thousand monuments to FDR,and none to Coolidge and Hoover.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Just because you live in a shit hole does not mean the rest of the country does. You can get a passport and travel easily, unlike you Soviet and Cuban comrades of yore. Go someplace else you can enjoy the livestock, just don't try to pollute their gene pool. A lot of fat gypsies in Eastern Europe, feel free there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, unlike the Eastern European Whorehouse you live in, I live in the third largest city in the US and the most prosperous city in the midwest.
> 
> My City...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your city...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point?
Click to expand...


Your city is the economic and architechual equivlent to Grandma's apartment that hasn't been redecorated since the 1960's....


----------



## Meathead

Are you seriously that misguided? You think they should tear down the heritage of over a 1000 years of western history and architecture to make it look like a another American shit hole like yours?!

You are one sick puppy!


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Are you seriously that misguided? You think they should tear down the heritage of over a 1000 years of western history and architecture to make it look like a another American shit hole like yours?!
> 
> You are one sick puppy!



Um, yeah, I think it's called "Progress".


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously that misguided? You think they should tear down the heritage of over a 1000 years of western history and architecture to make it look like a another American shit hole like yours?!
> 
> You are one sick puppy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, I think it's called "Progress".
Click to expand...

I think it's called unadulterated stupidity Joe. I can't believe even a moron such as yourself would come up with something like that. Your mind must be syphilitic.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously that misguided? You think they should tear down the heritage of over a 1000 years of western history and architecture to make it look like a another American shit hole like yours?!
> 
> You are one sick puppy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, I think it's called "Progress".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's called unadulterated stupidity Joe. I can't believe even a moron such as yourself would come up with something like that. Your mind must be syphilitic.
Click to expand...


Saving a few buildings is nice. 

Keeping all the old buidlings because no one wants to be bothered building new ones, and your architecture is so backwards that movies use you as a set to replicate the past... meh, not so much.  

_Amadeus _was filmed in Prague because it looked more like 18th century Vienna than Vienna did.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, I think it's called "Progress".
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's called unadulterated stupidity Joe. I can't believe even a moron such as yourself would come up with something like that. Your mind must be syphilitic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saving a few buildings is nice.
> 
> Keeping all the old buidlings because no one wants to be bothered building new ones, and your architecture is so backwards that movies use you as a set to replicate the past... meh, not so much.
> 
> _Amadeus _was filmed in Prague because it looked more like 18th century Vienna than Vienna did.
Click to expand...

Yeah Joe, we know you have a degree in history. ROTFLMAO!

Amadeus was filmed in Prague because it was cheaper than Vienna, especially then.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> If America was a "shithole" before FDR...then why were millions of people leaving their homelands to move here?  How do you explain the mass migrations of people to the US that took place all through the 1800's and early 1900's?  In 1790 we had a population of a little less than 4 million people.  A mere hundred years later that population had grown to almost 63 million.  By 1930 it was up to 123 million.  People don't move to "shitholes", Joe...and your contention that the US was one is absurd.
> 
> Just one more example of you spouting nonsense because you're so blinded by hatred of anyone who's successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogstyle, go back and read what I said about Europe being worse shitholes.
> 
> It should be pointed out that a LOT of people who came here went back the minute they figured out they had been had.  For instance, about half the Italians who immigrated here between 1900 and 1940 went back as soon as they figured out they had been had.
> 
> Please, guy, America became great not because a few rich assholes exploited slaves and immigrants, the good old days the GOP wants to take us back to. It became great when we said, 'Hey, the promise of AMerica needs to apply to everyone."
> 
> And once, both Republicans and Democrats used to get that.
Click to expand...


Half the Italians who immigrated here between 1900 and 1940 went back and THAT proves that the US was a "shithole"?  What that *proves* is that the US was the land of opportunity where people came to make the money that they couldn't make in Italy.  The Italians who came and went back didn't do so because they'd been "had"...they did so because they had achieved their objective of making enough money that they could improve their lot in life back in their home country.  That same thing occurs here now with workers from Mexico, Jamaica, Brazil and Guatemala.

Once again, Joe...your perception of what was taking place is completely misguided because of the slanted view you start out looking at the situation with.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quot
> 
> The Electoral College is hardly a "technicality", Joe.  It's part of the process that we have used to elect a President since the 1700's, a process that has provided the US with one of the most orderly transfers of power anywhere.  Bush won the election in 2000 because he won the most electoral votes and THAT is the way our system works.  The Electoral College system works but if you'd like to change that system, fine...but to sit here 13 years later STILL whining about Gore's loss in 2000 is a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Electoral College is SHIT. Its a horrible system that distorts democracy, and gives us terrible results.
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, man, even Richard Nixon didn't do what Bush did.  In 1960, he could have insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities in IL and TX, but he didn't. He respected MORE PEOPLE voted for JFK.  What does it say that Bush has less honor than Tricky Dick?
> 
> the result of Bush's theft 13 years later is that the country is a wreck. We've lost our prosperity and our honor.  And frankly, if anyone should be concerned, it should be Republicans. Bush destroyed your national brand.
Click to expand...


Once again you're confused about your history, Joe.  It isn't Bush that insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities...that was Al Gore.  Bush was perfectly happy with the results because he won.  It was Gore that demanded recounts in Florida.

And solely blaming Bush for the "wreck" this country now is ridiculous.  Blame for the situation we find ourselves in now lies with both political parties.  Only a blinders wearing ideologue would blame one man for problems that can be traced all the way BACK to the policies of FDR!  This situation has been coming down the pike for a LONG time.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, unlike the Eastern European Whorehouse you live in, I live in the third largest city in the US and the most prosperous city in the midwest.
> 
> My City...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your city...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your city is the economic and architechual equivlent to Grandma's apartment that hasn't been redecorated since the 1960's....
Click to expand...


Gee, Joe...how about you show some pictures of Chicago's South Side?

Portrait of Black Chicago

Speaking of "shitholes"...


----------



## editec

> In the Eurostat research,* Prague ranked fifth among Europe's 271 regions in terms of gross domestic product per inhabitant, achieving 172 percent of the EU average. It ranked just above Paris* and well above the Czech Republic as a whole, which achieved 80 percent of the EU average.[53][54]



source WIKI.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Just because you live in a shit hole does not mean the rest of the country does. You can get a passport and travel easily, unlike you Soviet and Cuban comrades of yore. Go someplace else you can enjoy the livestock, just don't try to pollute their gene pool. A lot of fat gypsies in Eastern Europe, feel free there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, unlike the Eastern European Whorehouse you live in, I live in the third largest city in the US and the most prosperous city in the midwest.
> 
> My City...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your city...
Click to expand...


yes your city ran by idiots  like you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, unlike the Eastern European Whorehouse you live in, I live in the third largest city in the US and the most prosperous city in the midwest.
> 
> My City...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your city...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your city is the economic and architechual equivlent to Grandma's apartment that hasn't been redecorated since the 1960's....
Click to expand...


Please STFU

Please

Your stupid is actually painful

Just STFU


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> No unemployment, people buying cars, people having money....was a shithole compared to 7 straight years of 20% Average unemployment????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, correcting your ignorance of history would be a full time job.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey there's a reason why there are thousand monuments to FDR,and none to Coolidge and Hoover.
Click to expand...




well they are correct and not giving any to Hoover,for there should be none for him.

If this was a great country and there was justice however, there would be none for that other bastard FDR though and plenty for Coolidge.Its too complicated for that warped brain of his to understand or comprehend why there are none for Coolidge and why there are for that traiter FDR.cant reason with someone on crack.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Camp but Joe has made claims that are not factually based and his interpretations of history are NOT what one would expect from a history major.  9/11 makes his fart comments because he's not intelligent enough to come back with an intelligent counter-argument.
> 
> At this point Joe has been shown to be incorrect on SO many of his contentions that he's resorted to the same childish retorts as 9/11...only with him it's labeling people as "retards" instead of talking about "farts".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, perhaps you are being unfairly placed in the small few posters on this thread that pretty much continuously pepper this thread with insults and name calling anytime anyone makes a negative comment towards Reagan. I find your post interesting as I find Joe's interesting.
Click to expand...


you find Trollstyles  posts interesting? the guy laughs at you when you point out facts to him how the CIA is an evil organization for instance and when you provide proof for him  like videos posted that congress discovered in the 70's that the CIA indeed has agents in the mainstream media,he ignores the video like you never posted it and THEN you  provide ACTUAL LIVE BROADCASTS of the 80's of newscasters themselves exposing how reagan betrayed the middle class,he blatantly ignores those videos or links you post like the troll he is refusing to acknowledge he has been proven wrong acting like you never posted it,and yet you find this trolls posts interesting?


He shows off his hypocrisy ignoring facts that prove reagan was evil and yet he says JOES claims are not correct?

 I havent followed every single post of Joes but the ones that I HAVE seen, are FAR more accurate and far more correct than TROLLSTYLES bullshit he keeps posting.He is a fucking hypocrite.

The way he has acted throughout this entire thread,refusing to address facts you bring up,he has brought all that name calling on himself deservedly.

Till he grows up and address the facts of his opponent  and answer a simple question asked to him and all  the  other reaganuts that him and they  refused to do,then he brought it on himself the name calling that he has gotten.He has done nothing but troll this thread ever since he got on here mixing in truths with lies and B.S AND  ignoring facts that prove he is wrong in the process.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> we have the best gov't Big Business can buy.



so very true.all recent presidents INCLUDING bastard reagan,have all done nothing but serve wall street and the bankers instead of the people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

hangover said:


> Raygun lived his whole life in fantasy land. His greatest accomplishment was BEDTIME FOR BONZO.





stands up and gives standing ovation.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Once again you're confused about your history, Joe.  It isn't Bush that insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities...that was Al Gore.  Bush was perfectly happy with the results because he won.  It was Gore that demanded recounts in Florida.
> 
> And solely blaming Bush for the "wreck" this country now is ridiculous.  Blame for the situation we find ourselves in now lies with both political parties.  Only a blinders wearing ideologue would blame one man for problems that can be traced all the way BACK to the policies of FDR!  This situation has been coming down the pike for a LONG time.



Sorry, man. Bush was president.  Totally his fault. 

He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years.  And lose a major city in the process.  Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.  

And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagans best movie was "bedtime for the USSR"


----------



## JoeB131

Yes, because we are so much better off with all those crazy Jihadists Reagan Armed to fight them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dogstyle, calling you retarded is an insult to Retards..."  JoeB
> 
> You know what, Joe?  I've patiently responded to each of your "views" in this thread...showing why it is that I think you're wrong.  I haven't called you childish names.  You on the other hand have decided that insults are an argument.  In what way is that different than 9/11 and his "fart" comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.
Click to expand...


yeah he sure does.

and fart comments are the only thing paid shills are worthy of.since they are incapable of answering ONE SIMPLE QUESTION asked to them over A HUNDRED TIMES ON THIS THREAD  and ignore videos of broadcasts of the media THEMSELVES from back in the 80's announcing how reporters back THEN even spoke of how reagans policys betrayed the middle class,since they ignore it and cant admit they have been proven wrong,fart jokes are all these paid trolls are worthy of. 

I said it before,its NOT ME making these claims.It was actual media broadcasts back then that announced it.the truth hurts so they ignore those actual live broadcasts and shoot the messenger to feel good about themselves.

that being said,since you cant have any kind of rational discussion with them,was wondering,did YOU see those videos I posted of actual live broadcasts from the media back then in the 80's where they themselves were talking about how reagans policys betrayed the middle class? the open minded, objective people here watched it and thanked me for the post.so please let me know if you missed it,would like you to see it since i know YOU wont ignore it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you're confused about your history, Joe.  It isn't Bush that insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities...that was Al Gore.  Bush was perfectly happy with the results because he won.  It was Gore that demanded recounts in Florida.
> 
> And solely blaming Bush for the "wreck" this country now is ridiculous.  Blame for the situation we find ourselves in now lies with both political parties.  Only a blinders wearing ideologue would blame one man for problems that can be traced all the way BACK to the policies of FDR!  This situation has been coming down the pike for a LONG time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man. Bush was president.  Totally his fault.
> 
> He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years.  And lose a major city in the process.  Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.
> 
> And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.
Click to expand...


I hate to agree here with Trollstyle but for once,he is actually correct that its rediculous to blame EVERYTHING on Bush for the wreck this country is in now.People forget how bad things were when Obama took over because of how things are much worse now with Obomination in office now.

Things were disasterous when Bush got in but because fo Obama,they are even worse now.always will be as long as we have this corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quot
> 
> The Electoral College is hardly a "technicality", Joe.  It's part of the process that we have used to elect a President since the 1700's, a process that has provided the US with one of the most orderly transfers of power anywhere.  Bush won the election in 2000 because he won the most electoral votes and THAT is the way our system works.  The Electoral College system works but if you'd like to change that system, fine...but to sit here 13 years later STILL whining about Gore's loss in 2000 is a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Electoral College is SHIT. Its a horrible system that distorts democracy, and gives us terrible results.
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, man, even Richard Nixon didn't do what Bush did.  In 1960, he could have insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities in IL and TX, but he didn't. He respected MORE PEOPLE voted for JFK.  What does it say that Bush has less honor than Tricky Dick?
> 
> the result of Bush's theft 13 years later is that the country is a wreck. We've lost our prosperity and our honor.  And frankly, if anyone should be concerned, it should be Republicans. Bush destroyed your national brand.
Click to expand...




Obomination is as much a criminal though.every president that gets in always ignores all the crimes the previous one did since they are both part of the good old boy network being a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, because we are so much better off with all those crazy Jihadists Reagan Armed to fight them.



THERE we go.Maybe NOW we can get back to the topic of this thread.The corruption run by that evil traiterous bastard Ronald Reagan.I'm probably hoping for too much here though.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because we are so much better off with all those crazy Jihadists Reagan Armed to fight them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THERE we go.Maybe NOW we can get back to the topic of this thread.The corruption run by that evil traiterous bastard Ronald Reagan.I'm probably hoping for too much here though.
Click to expand...


Well, what more can be said, and why bother? Nothing sticks to the teflon president, and posters will continue to fart in here.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you're confused about your history, Joe.  It isn't Bush that insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities...that was Al Gore.  Bush was perfectly happy with the results because he won.  It was Gore that demanded recounts in Florida.
> 
> And solely blaming Bush for the "wreck" this country now is ridiculous.  Blame for the situation we find ourselves in now lies with both political parties.  Only a blinders wearing ideologue would blame one man for problems that can be traced all the way BACK to the policies of FDR!  This situation has been coming down the pike for a LONG time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man. Bush was president.  Totally his fault.
> 
> He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years.  And lose a major city in the process.  Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.
> 
> And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.
Click to expand...


You may have the most superficial grasp of history of anyone I've ever met, Joe.  Listening to you is like taking a "History Lite" class...where the Professor sort of knows a little bit about a subject but really knows very little about it at all.

You make a statement about Bush demanding recounts and compare THAT with Nixon's decision not to demand recounts back in 1960.  The only problem with that ignorant rant is that it was *Gore* that demanded the recounts because he lost in Florida not Bush.  So what do you do when that's pointed out to you?  You rattle off that canned nonsense about Bush inheriting "surpluses, peace & prosperity".  The problem with THAT ignorant rant is that Bush inherited a contracting economy as the Dot Com Boom bubble evaporated in the last year of Slick Willie's 2'nd term and a fight that was forced upon him by an enemy that was plotting to attack the US *LONG* before the choice of Bush or Gore was made.  I have no clue what you're talking about when you say Bush lost a "major city"!  Did we *lose * a city that I didn't hear about?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you're confused about your history, Joe.  It isn't Bush that insisted on recounts and challenged voting irregularities...that was Al Gore.  Bush was perfectly happy with the results because he won.  It was Gore that demanded recounts in Florida.
> 
> And solely blaming Bush for the "wreck" this country now is ridiculous.  Blame for the situation we find ourselves in now lies with both political parties.  Only a blinders wearing ideologue would blame one man for problems that can be traced all the way BACK to the policies of FDR!  This situation has been coming down the pike for a LONG time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man. Bush was president.  Totally his fault.
> 
> He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years.  And lose a major city in the process.  Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.
> 
> And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may have the most superficial grasp of history of anyone I've ever met, Joe.  Listening to you is like taking a "History Lite" class...where the Professor sort of knows a little bit about a subject but really knows very little about it at all.
> 
> You make a statement about Bush demanding recounts and compare THAT with Nixon's decision not to demand recounts back in 1960.  The only problem with that ignorant rant is that it was *Gore* that demanded the recounts because he lost in Florida not Bush.  So what do you do when that's pointed out to you?  ?
Click to expand...


Nixon could have won on a technicality but respected the will of the people. 

Bush won on a technicality and ignored the wil lof the people.  His brother and Catherine Harris did all they could to suppress recounts. 



> You rattle off that canned nonsense about Bush inheriting "surpluses, peace & prosperity".  The problem with THAT ignorant rant is that Bush inherited a contracting economy as the Dot Com Boom bubble evaporated in the last year of Slick Willie's 2'nd term



The contractions weren't that serious.  Bush Still inherited 4% unemployment AND surpluses of over 200 Billion a year.  And his first reaction was "Hey, let's give tax cuts to RICH PEOPLE!" 





> and a fight that was forced upon him by an enemy that was plotting to attack the US *LONG* before the choice of Bush or Gore was made.



Treating a criminal act like a cause of war is kind of stupid, really.  But it would have been nice had Bush actually gotten his ass off the ranch when the CIA came to him with a memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US".   Instead, he said, "Well, you covered your ass" and went fishing.  

Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB - Salon.com

Hey, but Bush got right on that- by attacking the wrong country!!!! 



> I have no clue what you're talking about when you say Bush lost a "major city"!  Did we *lose * a city that I didn't hear about



YOu now, New Orleans. Washed off the map, hundreds of people killed, because he appointed a guy who ran HORSE SHOWS to run FEMA and didn't spend money on levies...  Sat on his ass at his ranch flipping off Cindy Sheehan.  

Really, this guy was a total fuckup, and you act like electing him was ever a good idea.  

But, no, let's rant about Obama and a website or four diplomats being killed.  Let's ignore losing a major city and thousands killed in Iraq.


----------



## JoeB131

From the above link.... 

Ron Suskind&#8217;s &#8220;The One Percent Doctrine&#8221; is out this week, and the Washington Post&#8217;s Barton Gellman says it&#8217;s full of &#8220;jaw-dropping stories&#8221; about the Bush administration&#8217;s war on terror. 

Or lack thereof. 

We&#8217;ve known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: &#8220;Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.&#8221; We&#8217;ve known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward. 

What we didn&#8217;t know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: &#8220;All right. You&#8217;ve covered your ass, now.&#8221;


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man. Bush was president.  Totally his fault.
> 
> He inherited surpluses, peace, prosperity and managed to fuck all that up in 8 years.  And lose a major city in the process.  Seriously, people have killed themselves over less incompetence.
> 
> And you guys keep acting like electing him was a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have the most superficial grasp of history of anyone I've ever met, Joe.  Listening to you is like taking a "History Lite" class...where the Professor sort of knows a little bit about a subject but really knows very little about it at all.
> 
> You make a statement about Bush demanding recounts and compare THAT with Nixon's decision not to demand recounts back in 1960.  The only problem with that ignorant rant is that it was *Gore* that demanded the recounts because he lost in Florida not Bush.  So what do you do when that's pointed out to you?  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon could have won on a technicality but respected the will of the people.
> 
> Bush won on a technicality and ignored the wil lof the people.  His brother and Catherine Harris did all they could to suppress recounts.
> 
> 
> 
> The contractions weren't that serious.  Bush Still inherited 4% unemployment AND surpluses of over 200 Billion a year.  And his first reaction was "Hey, let's give tax cuts to RICH PEOPLE!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and a fight that was forced upon him by an enemy that was plotting to attack the US *LONG* before the choice of Bush or Gore was made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treating a criminal act like a cause of war is kind of stupid, really.  But it would have been nice had Bush actually gotten his ass off the ranch when the CIA came to him with a memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US".   Instead, he said, "Well, you covered your ass" and went fishing.
> 
> Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB - Salon.com
> 
> Hey, but Bush got right on that- by attacking the wrong country!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no clue what you're talking about when you say Bush lost a "major city"!  Did we *lose * a city that I didn't hear about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu now, New Orleans. Washed off the map, hundreds of people killed, because he appointed a guy who ran HORSE SHOWS to run FEMA and didn't spend money on levies...  Sat on his ass at his ranch flipping off Cindy Sheehan.
> 
> Really, this guy was a total fuckup, and you act like electing him was ever a good idea.
> 
> But, no, let's rant about Obama and a website or four diplomats being killed.  Let's ignore losing a major city and thousands killed in Iraq.
Click to expand...


Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.

Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone.  He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government.  But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.

Only the truly ignorant buy into the notion that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and failed to act.  The truth is that he was given a vague warning that Al Queda wanted to strike against the US in a daily briefing that was one of many briefings that warned of the same thing.  Blaming Bush for failing to act from THAT briefing is a cheap shot.  Always was...always will be.

As for the tragedy in New Orleans?  George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes.  George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city.  George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies.  George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans.  George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm.  The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water.  People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them.  I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina!  Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.
> 
> Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone.  He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government.  But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.



No, what pisses me off is that we are going TRILLIONS into debt while the rich are living large at the expense of the rest of us....

The rich didn't need tax cuts.  At least not until we paid off the 6 Trillion in debt that Bush's Daddy and Ray-Gun incurred.  Instead, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and then spent Trillions avenging his Daddy on Saddam.  So when he left, we had 11 Trillion in debt, a busted economy and now way to pay our obligations.   And you think the guy was a good president, apparently.  



> Only the truly ignorant buy into the notion that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and failed to act.  The truth is that he was given a vague warning that Al Queda wanted to strike against the US in a daily briefing that was one of many briefings that warned of the same thing.  Blaming Bush for failing to act from THAT briefing is a cheap shot.  Always was...always will be.



Again, he was given a warning and did ... nothing.  Sometimes you got to take the cheap shots because they are so obvious.  I'd give Bush a pass for his conduct before 9/11 if his conduct after 9/11 wasn't so much worse.  Invading the wrong country, blowing billions of dollars, wasting thousands of lives, ignoring the advice of his generals, torture, spying, and so on.  





> As for the tragedy in New Orleans?  George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes.  George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city.  George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies.  George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans.  George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm.  The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water.  People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them.  I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina!  Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.



This sounds like blaming a rape victim for her attack.  "Well, she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood, at that time of night. She really has no one to blame but herself." 

Incidently, before they put the Horse Show Guy, Heckava Job Brownie in charge of FEMA, FEMA was pretty good at its job.  That's because it had professionals in charge.  Not political hacks.  And when Obama put professionals back in charge, it did a pretty good job. 

Notice that during Sandy, Obama didn't blame Christy and Bloomberg for the problems. The job just got done.


----------



## JoeB131

Seriously, man, you excuse Bush like he wasn't even in charge. 

Well, I guess technically Cheney was...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression



No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.  

Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.

Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.
> 
> Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan
Click to expand...


Actually, I loved Reagan at the time. Campaigned for him and voted for him. 

Now I have the benefit of hindsight and perspective.  

The point was, Reagan "challenging" the USSR had nothing to do with why it fell. It fell because ultimately, it was stuck with the same design flaw the Tsarist Russian Empire had.  

Too few Russians ruling over too few not-Russians.  After a certain point, the Russians just didn't think it was worth the bother anymore.


----------



## thanatos144

You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? 30 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? #0 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him



You know how sensible people can tell he was an awful president. 

Just seeing how much worse off the country was after him than before him.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? #0 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how sensible people can tell he was an awful president.
> 
> Just seeing how much worse off the country was after him than before him.
Click to expand...


What the hell would you know about a good president? Your a communist.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how you know that Reagan was a great President? #0 years later and the Fascist liberals and conspiracy kook libertarians still make lies about him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how sensible people can tell he was an awful president.
> 
> Just seeing how much worse off the country was after him than before him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell would you know about a good president? Your a communist.
Click to expand...


Again, would be more impressed with your political acumen if you knew the difference between "your" and "you're".  

your- Second person possessive. 

you're -  Contraction for "You Are".  

got it?  

Good.  

Now, I know a good president doesn't weaken the middle class, doesn't run up 3 trillion in debt, doesn't trade arms for hostages, to start with.  

I think that pretty much eliminates Ray-gun from contention.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.
> 
> Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I loved Reagan at the time. Campaigned for him and voted for him.
> 
> Now I have the benefit of hindsight and perspective.
> 
> The point was, Reagan "challenging" the USSR had nothing to do with why it fell. It fell because ultimately, it was stuck with the same design flaw the Tsarist Russian Empire had.
> 
> *Too few Russians ruling over too few not-Russians.  After a certain point, the Russians just didn't think it was worth the bother anymore.*
Click to expand...



You can't bring yourself to admit that communism is a failed system...can you, Joe?  

If one of my history students had ever handed in a paper with a statement like the one I highlighted I would have circled it in red pencil and asked  "The Russians didn't think it was worth the "bother", Joe?  Really?  On what do you base that comment?"


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


So now your contention is that Poland has gone back to communism, Joe?  Really?  That's one more statement that would be circled in red pencil with a giant ? next to it.  

I'll say this for you...you're consistent.  You don't know much...about a whole range of topics!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.
> 
> Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I loved Reagan at the time. Campaigned for him and voted for him.
> 
> Now I have the benefit of hindsight and perspective.
> 
> The point was, Reagan "challenging" the USSR had nothing to do with why it fell. It fell because ultimately, it was stuck with the same design flaw the Tsarist Russian Empire had.
> 
> Too few Russians ruling over too few not-Russians.  After a certain point, the Russians just didn't think it was worth the bother anymore.
Click to expand...


Sure you did, JoeB

Sure you did.

You and your Cuban emigres who long for Fidel were big Reagan supporters

Keep telling yourself the Berlin Wall just feel from deferred maintenance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NjNL4Nsa4Q]"Mr. Gorbachev - tear down this wall." - Ronald Reagan, Berlin, 1987 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toro

Given how shitty communism was, the Berlin Wall would have fallen from deferred maintenance eventually.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.
> 
> Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone.  He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government.  But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what pisses me off is that we are going TRILLIONS into debt while the rich are living large at the expense of the rest of us....
> 
> The rich didn't need tax cuts.  At least not until we paid off the 6 Trillion in debt that Bush's Daddy and Ray-Gun incurred.  Instead, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and then spent Trillions avenging his Daddy on Saddam.  So when he left, we had 11 Trillion in debt, a busted economy and now way to pay our obligations.   And you think the guy was a good president, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the truly ignorant buy into the notion that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and failed to act.  The truth is that he was given a vague warning that Al Queda wanted to strike against the US in a daily briefing that was one of many briefings that warned of the same thing.  Blaming Bush for failing to act from THAT briefing is a cheap shot.  Always was...always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, he was given a warning and did ... nothing.  Sometimes you got to take the cheap shots because they are so obvious.  I'd give Bush a pass for his conduct before 9/11 if his conduct after 9/11 wasn't so much worse.  Invading the wrong country, blowing billions of dollars, wasting thousands of lives, ignoring the advice of his generals, torture, spying, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the tragedy in New Orleans?  George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes.  George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city.  George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies.  George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans.  George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm.  The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water.  People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them.  I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina!  Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like blaming a rape victim for her attack.  "Well, she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood, at that time of night. She really has no one to blame but herself."
> 
> Incidently, before they put the Horse Show Guy, Heckava Job Brownie in charge of FEMA, FEMA was pretty good at its job.  That's because it had professionals in charge.  Not political hacks.  And when Obama put professionals back in charge, it did a pretty good job.
> 
> Notice that during Sandy, Obama didn't blame Christy and Bloomberg for the problems. The job just got done.
Click to expand...


New Orleans was a debacle because local leaders like Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco failed to do THEIR jobs and so many people in the New Orleans area were totally unprepared for a major storm and it's aftermath.  I* live* in hurricane country and I understand what is required when a big one is headed your way.  Your choices are clear...you either need to evacuate or if you choose to stay you need to put up enough food and water to survive for a minimum of three days but if you're smart you'll have enough to last a week.  People in New Orleans ran out of food and water the day after the storm hit.  THAT is not preparedness...that is stupidity.  FEMA is not in the business of providing immediate aid to hurricane victims.  I'm sorry, but they simply aren't.  Their job is the long term recovery from storms.

What's pathetic is that the people in New York and New Jersey...areas the seldom get hit by major hurricanes were FAR better prepared than New Orleans was...a city that is right on the Gulf and gets hit with storms all the time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because we are so much better off with all those crazy Jihadists Reagan Armed to fight them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THERE we go.Maybe NOW we can get back to the topic of this thread.The corruption run by that evil traiterous bastard Ronald Reagan.I'm probably hoping for too much here though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, what more can be said, and why bother? Nothing sticks to the teflon president, and posters will continue to fart in here.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan openly challenged Soviet Communism and vowed to defeat them.
> 
> Some people, like JoeB, love being slaves -- and hate Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I loved Reagan at the time. Campaigned for him and voted for him.
> 
> Now I have the benefit of hindsight and perspective.
> 
> The point was, Reagan "challenging" the USSR had nothing to do with why it fell. It fell because ultimately, it was stuck with the same design flaw the Tsarist Russian Empire had.
> 
> Too few Russians ruling over too few not-Russians.  After a certain point, the Russians just didn't think it was worth the bother anymore.
Click to expand...


who couldnt love reagan back then? it was easy to fall for his charm and charisma and the facts of his corruption were suppressed from us by the CIA controlled media back then  of course.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Crusader Retard is obviously a close cousin of rayguns so he of course is going to make up lies about his distant cousin so he can remain in denial and continue living in this  fantasyworld he lives in.


----------



## thanatos144

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan liberated whole countries from Soviet Communism; freeing hundreds of millions of people from its crushing, dehumanizing oppression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crusader Retard is obviously a close cousin of rayguns so he of course is going to make up lies about his distant cousin so he can remain in denial and continue living in this  fantasyworld he lives in.
Click to expand...


You are proof that the youth in this country a bordering  on retarded


----------



## Meathead

thanatos144 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those people liberated themselves.  And then some of them like the Poles voted the Communists back in when the Free Market guys couldn't produce services.
> 
> Ray-Gun had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crusader Retard is obviously a close cousin of rayguns so he of course is going to make up lies about his distant cousin so he can remain in denial and continue living in this  fantasyworld he lives in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are proof that the youth in this country a bordering  on retarded
Click to expand...

Joe's problem is he wanted to be rich and failed badly. The conspiracy idiot's problem is that he's an a paranoid idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher

whitehall said:


> Geez. what a crock of crap.



Excellent rebuttal; solid points, well structured and annotated.  You must be the pride of the Right Wing as you so ably and concisely refuted the attack on the Messiah of modern conservatism.


----------



## Camp

Why do people think the most corrupt administration in American history was led by a great President? Wouldn't and shouldn't the leader of that kind of administration be considered one of the worst President's?
So how many members of his adminstration got indicted? How many got convicted? How many got pardoned? Is this what is meant by "Teflon President"? All that crime went on under his command but none of it sticks to him. The old geezer gets forgiven because why? He was an old geezer that didn't know what was going on around him? Yet some claim he at the same time was some kind of brilliant genius that brought down the USSR.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

*Countries freed by Reagan*

East Germany
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Romania
Albania
Yugoslavia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania

Not bad, Ronny. Not bad at all


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Countries freed by Reagan*
> 
> East Germany
> Poland
> Hungary
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Romania
> Albania
> Yugoslavia
> Estonia
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> 
> Not bad, Ronny. Not bad at all



coming from a fucking liar who ignores facts that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union we REALLY should listen  to a troll like you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Why do people think the most corrupt administration in American history was led by a great President? Wouldn't and shouldn't the leader of that kind of administration be considered one of the worst President's?
> So how many members of his adminstration got indicted? How many got convicted? How many got pardoned? Is this what is meant by "Teflon President"? All that crime went on under his command but none of it sticks to him. The old geezer gets forgiven because why? He was an old geezer that didn't know what was going on around him? Yet some claim he at the same time was some kind of brilliant genius that brought down the USSR.



 they only see what they WANT to see which is why they wont read this link full of those facts you just mentioned of all those officials that served under him that got indicted.

Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans

presidents NEVER get indicted so of course he escaped it the fact that there is one different law for presidents than there is for us.

all these things below is what Reagan REALLY was.

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 
Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "



the trolls like Crusader Retard and Trollstyle can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> 
> You can't bring yourself to admit that communism is a failed system...can you, Joe?
> 
> If one of my history students had ever handed in a paper with a statement like the one I highlighted I would have circled it in red pencil and asked  "The Russians didn't think it was worth the "bother", Joe?  Really?  On what do you base that comment?"



Well, how about during the 1991 Coup, when the Communist Party and Soviet Military kidnapped Gorby, and Yeltsin and other Russians formed a human chain around the Duma and said, "Uh-uh"... (Or the Russian equivlent.)  

Or the fact that a lot of those former Soviet Republics and Satellites have either retained the same Communist Party aparaticks or voted them back into Power.  

Poland was happy to see the Russians go, but then they turned around and voted in the SLD (Socialist Labor Party) into power in 1995 when it was obvious Lech Walesa didn't know how to run the country.  

Also, absolutely frightening a right wing mutant is out there teaching kids much of anything.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people think the most corrupt administration in American history was led by a great President? Wouldn't and shouldn't the leader of that kind of administration be considered one of the worst President's?
> So how many members of his adminstration got indicted? How many got convicted? How many got pardoned? Is this what is meant by "Teflon President"? All that crime went on under his command but none of it sticks to him. The old geezer gets forgiven because why? He was an old geezer that didn't know what was going on around him? Yet some claim he at the same time was some kind of brilliant genius that brought down the USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they only see what they WANT to see which is why they wont read this link full of those facts you just mentioned of all those officials that served under him that got indicted.
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
> 
> presidents NEVER get indicted so of course he escaped it the fact that there is one different law for presidents than there is for us.
> 
> all these things below is what Reagan REALLY was.
> 
> Liar
> Thief
> Mass murderer
> Supporter of abortion
> War criminal
> 
> 
> 
> Destroyer of freedom
> Traitor of the American people
> Corporate whore
> Destroyer of the environment
> Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "
> 
> 
> 
> the trolls like Crusader Retard and Trollstyle can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.
Click to expand...


the reaganuts always see this and usually say-okay you lost your credibility right there saying he was a satanist.sure it SOUNDS loony but the facts are,he was a regular attendee of Bohemian Grove in california where they do mock trials of devil worship and human sacrifice.past presidents that are and were members include Obama,Bush sr,Bush Jr,Clinton,Ford,Johnson,Nixon,AND REAGAN. as you can see for yourself in this link below.


all taken from this link below.
satanism

Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were Bohemian Grove members and they were photographed at meeting in 1957




(Reagan's first astrologer Carrol Righter, Time Magazine's cover on Astrology Joan Quigley's book )


Ronald Reagan

To Read about RR's first Astrologer  Click Here
To Watch a film about the Reagans & Quigley Click Here
To Read about Reagan's fascination with the occult  Click Here
To Watch Joan Quigley discuss her astrological work for the Reagans Click Here
To Read how the Reagans consulted with Astrologer Joan Quigley (Time Magazine)  Click Here


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You can't bring yourself to admit that communism is a failed system...can you, Joe?
> 
> If one of my history students had ever handed in a paper with a statement like the one I highlighted I would have circled it in red pencil and asked  "The Russians didn't think it was worth the "bother", Joe?  Really?  On what do you base that comment?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how about during the 1991 Coup, when the Communist Party and Soviet Military kidnapped Gorby, and Yeltsin and other Russians formed a human chain around the Duma and said, "Uh-uh"... (Or the Russian equivlent.)
> 
> Or the fact that a lot of those former Soviet Republics and Satellites have either retained the same Communist Party aparaticks or voted them back into Power.
> 
> Poland was happy to see the Russians go, but then they turned around and voted in the SLD (Socialist Labor Party) into power in 1995 when it was obvious Lech Walesa didn't know how to run the country.
> 
> Also, absolutely frightening a right wing mutant is out there teaching kids much of anything.
Click to expand...


Jesus, Joe...you look at countries that for two generations knew nothing but communism and collective planning and then struggled to implement free market economies and come to the conclusion that they went BACK to communism because IT worked and capitalism didn't.  Yes, there were people in Poland that took comfort in being told what to do and wanted the return of the communists because the new freedoms scared the shit out of them.  It took awhile for that sentiment to die out.

So tell me, Joe...is the SLD still running Poland these days?  Are the communists in control?  The TRUTH is that communism is in such ill repute in Poland these days that it is illegal to display the hammer & sickle or even Che Guevara tee shirts.  You do so and they'll put you in prison for up to 2 years!  Yeah...they are just LOVING communism in Poland!!!  (eye-roll)


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Jesus, Joe...you look at countries that for two generations knew nothing but communism and collective planning and then struggled to implement free market economies and come to the conclusion that they went BACK to communism because IT worked and capitalism didn't.  Yes, there were people in Poland that took comfort in being told what to do and wanted the return of the communists because the new freedoms scared the shit out of them.  It took awhile for that sentiment to die out.
> 
> So tell me, Joe...is the SLD still running Poland these days?  Are the communists in control?  The TRUTH is that communism is in such ill repute in Poland these days that it is illegal to display the hammer & sickle or even Che Guevara tee shirts.  You do so and they'll put you in prison for up to 2 years!  Yeah...they are just LOVING communism in Poland!!!  (eye-roll)



Again, because the hammer and sickle are seen as symbols of RUSSIA, not communism.  

And, yeah, the next group of idiots who ran Poland decided to chuck free speech and democracy and you think this is a good thing?  really?  

Here's the reality.  The fall of the USSR was a failure of Imperialism, not Communism. 

Now, quite the contrary, I'm not defending Communism per se. It's kind of hard to have that discussion with people who think the glory of capitalism is that we should let poor children starve because their parents can't find jobs, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a Communist.  That's the SICKNESS that has overtaken the GOP, and why I had to walk away from it.  

But from a realistic, historical persective, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation, not a system. And it certainly had nothing to do with a senile old actor making a speech.  Or spending us into 3 trillion in debt buying $600 toilet seats.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Countries freed by Reagan*
> 
> East Germany
> Poland
> Hungary
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Romania
> Albania
> Yugoslavia
> Estonia
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> 
> Not bad, Ronny. Not bad at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming from a fucking liar who ignores facts that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union we REALLY should listen  to a troll like you.
Click to expand...


Riggggggggggggggggggggggght.

Gorby woke up on day and said, "I know!!  I'll dismantle the USSR!  And I'll take down the Berlin Wall too!!"


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Countries freed by Reagan*
> 
> East Germany
> Poland
> Hungary
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Romania
> Albania
> Yugoslavia
> Estonia
> Latvia
> Lithuania
> 
> Not bad, Ronny. Not bad at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming from a fucking liar who ignores facts that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union we REALLY should listen  to a troll like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riggggggggggggggggggggggght.
> 
> Gorby woke up on day and said, "I know!!  I'll dismantle the USSR!  And I'll take down the Berlin Wall too!!"
Click to expand...


No, ofcourse not. It was a long time coming awakening by millions of people in those listed counties and millions more in Russia. Without those millions, hell, tens and tens of millions, the USSR would still be here. Reagan was a long time gone when they woke up.


----------



## Meathead

Reagan gave them hope on which they capitalized. With weak-ass presidents like Carter or Obama in office, the USSR might still be here.

Reagan set out to change America after the Johnson-Nixon/Ford-Carter string of disasters, he ended up changing the world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> coming from a fucking liar who ignores facts that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union we REALLY should listen  to a troll like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riggggggggggggggggggggggght.
> 
> Gorby woke up on day and said, "I know!!  I'll dismantle the USSR!  And I'll take down the Berlin Wall too!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, ofcourse not. It was a long time coming awakening by millions of people in those listed counties and millions more in Russia. Without those millions, hell, tens and tens of millions, the USSR would still be here. Reagan was a long time gone when they woke up.
Click to expand...


Yeah that's why it worked so well in Hungary in 1956, amiright?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressive are the biggest liars I've ever met


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riggggggggggggggggggggggght.
> 
> Gorby woke up on day and said, "I know!!  I'll dismantle the USSR!  And I'll take down the Berlin Wall too!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, ofcourse not. It was a long time coming awakening by millions of people in those listed counties and millions more in Russia. Without those millions, hell, tens and tens of millions, the USSR would still be here. Reagan was a long time gone when they woke up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why it worked so well in Hungary in 1956, amiright?
Click to expand...


Good point. Efforts to end Russian occupation and the USSR were going on for 25 years before Reagan became President and over a decade more before it was accomplished.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Pick an industry known for lying and lack of ethics and it's nothing, it's saintly compared to listening to Progressives talking about politics or history


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, ofcourse not. It was a long time coming awakening by millions of people in those listed counties and millions more in Russia. Without those millions, hell, tens and tens of millions, the USSR would still be here. Reagan was a long time gone when they woke up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why it worked so well in Hungary in 1956, amiright?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point. Efforts to end Russian occupation and the USSR were going on for 25 years before Reagan became President and over a decade more before it was accomplished.
Click to expand...


How many Presidents called the USSR an Evil Empire?


----------



## naomibee

Meathead said:


> Reagan gave them hope on which they capitalized. With weak-ass presidents like Carter or Obama in office, the USSR might still be here.
> 
> Reagan set out to change America after the Johnson-Nixon/Ford-Carter string of disasters, he ended up changing the world.



He was the only good president we all ever had. heck we named our son after him back in the 80s.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, Joe...you look at countries that for two generations knew nothing but communism and collective planning and then struggled to implement free market economies and come to the conclusion that they went BACK to communism because IT worked and capitalism didn't.  Yes, there were people in Poland that took comfort in being told what to do and wanted the return of the communists because the new freedoms scared the shit out of them.  It took awhile for that sentiment to die out.
> 
> So tell me, Joe...is the SLD still running Poland these days?  Are the communists in control?  The TRUTH is that communism is in such ill repute in Poland these days that it is illegal to display the hammer & sickle or even Che Guevara tee shirts.  You do so and they'll put you in prison for up to 2 years!  Yeah...they are just LOVING communism in Poland!!!  (eye-roll)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because the hammer and sickle are seen as symbols of RUSSIA, not communism.
> 
> And, yeah, the next group of idiots who ran Poland decided to chuck free speech and democracy and you think this is a good thing?  really?
> 
> Here's the reality.  The fall of the USSR was a failure of Imperialism, not Communism.
> 
> Now, quite the contrary, I'm not defending Communism per se. It's kind of hard to have that discussion with people who think the glory of capitalism is that we should let poor children starve because their parents can't find jobs, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a Communist.  That's the SICKNESS that has overtaken the GOP, and why I had to walk away from it.
> 
> But from a realistic, historical persective, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation, not a system. And it certainly had nothing to do with a senile old actor making a speech.  Or spending us into 3 trillion in debt buying $600 toilet seats.
Click to expand...


And I suppose that Che Guevara is a symbol of Russia also?  He's a symbol of international communism, you buffoon...and if you wear a tee shirt with his face on it in Poland you can be arrested for doing so!  Yet you think the Polish people embrace communism?

So now the Soviet Union wasn't even communist?  Is that your NEW contention?  That it's failure (you now seem willing to admit that they did indeed fail...which is progress for you!) wasn't a failure of communism but a failure of "Imperialism"?  You get more amusing with each retreat and re-entrenchment, Joe!  Yes, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation...but WHY did it fail?  The answer to that question is quite obviously that communism didn't work as an economic system.  Communism went toe to toe with capitalism in a no holds barred contest of wills over a forty year span and over and over again, communism was shown to be the inferior economic system.  Reagan was simply the catalyst that sped up an inevitable collapse.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Progressive are the biggest liars I've ever met



That is because you bury your head in the sand when it comes to the Reagan administration. His administration holds the record for convicted liars. Not just opinions and talking points,but actual convictions for being liars. Not telling lies about blow jobs or to promote political issue, but lies to promote death, violence and illegal war. Lies that allowed and caused untold numbers of people to die because of his stupidity and dishonesty. Lies that gave birth to the terrorism that brought down buildings and have us fighting a war against terrorism today, over twenty years after The Geezer left office.


----------



## Camp

Alan D. Fiers


----------



## Camp

Rita LaVelle


----------



## Camp

Richard Secord


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Reagan gave them hope on which they capitalized. With weak-ass presidents like Carter or Obama in office, the USSR might still be here.
> 
> Reagan set out to change America after the Johnson-Nixon/Ford-Carter string of disasters, he ended up changing the world.



Yeah, he did.  

Just not for the better.  

I kind of liked it when America had a middle class...


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> And I suppose that Che Guevara is a symbol of Russia also?  He's a symbol of international communism, you buffoon...and if you wear a tee shirt with his face on it in Poland you can be arrested for doing so!  Yet you think the Polish people embrace communism?



Besides the fact you haven't posted a link to this claim, the fact remains, Poland voted teh Communists back into power.  So that tells me that what the Poles were rejecting was Russian Domination... not the other thing. 




Oldstyle said:


> [
> So now the Soviet Union wasn't even communist?  Is that your NEW contention?  That it's failure (you now seem willing to admit that they did indeed fail...which is progress for you!) wasn't a failure of communism but a failure of "Imperialism"?  You get more amusing with each retreat and re-entrenchment, Joe!  Yes, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation...but WHY did it fail?  The answer to that question is quite obviously that communism didn't work as an economic system.  Communism went toe to toe with capitalism in a no holds barred contest of wills over a forty year span and over and over again, communism was shown to be the inferior economic system.  Reagan was simply the catalyst that sped up an inevitable collapse.



It failed for the same reason all EMPIRES fail.  

beause most people just don't like being ruled by foreigners.  

Had nothing to do with "Captialism" or "Communism", which all sound great in theory but didn't really happen in the real world.  

Shit, the reason why the whole west didn't collapse into Communism is because the capitalists made a bunch of concessions to labor....

But again- failure of a nation that didn't have anything to do with a senile old actor and his harpy of a wife reading Astrological Tables....


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riggggggggggggggggggggggght.
> 
> Gorby woke up on day and said, "I know!!  I'll dismantle the USSR!  And I'll take down the Berlin Wall too!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, ofcourse not. It was a long time coming awakening by millions of people in those listed counties and millions more in Russia. Without those millions, hell, tens and tens of millions, the USSR would still be here. Reagan was a long time gone when they woke up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why it worked so well in Hungary in 1956, amiright?
Click to expand...


Yeah, that would be the same Hungary that threw in with the Axis a decade before wondering why the USSR wasn't going to put up with any of their shit.


----------



## Dot Com

the ussr had been running on fumes for years CrusaderFrank.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And I suppose that Che Guevara is a symbol of Russia also?  He's a symbol of international communism, you buffoon...and if you wear a tee shirt with his face on it in Poland you can be arrested for doing so!  Yet you think the Polish people embrace communism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the fact you haven't posted a link to this claim, the fact remains, Poland voted teh Communists back into power.  So that tells me that what the Poles were rejecting was Russian Domination... not the other thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> So now the Soviet Union wasn't even communist?  Is that your NEW contention?  That it's failure (you now seem willing to admit that they did indeed fail...which is progress for you!) wasn't a failure of communism but a failure of "Imperialism"?  You get more amusing with each retreat and re-entrenchment, Joe!  Yes, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation...but WHY did it fail?  The answer to that question is quite obviously that communism didn't work as an economic system.  Communism went toe to toe with capitalism in a no holds barred contest of wills over a forty year span and over and over again, communism was shown to be the inferior economic system.  Reagan was simply the catalyst that sped up an inevitable collapse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It failed for the same reason all EMPIRES fail.
> 
> beause most people just don't like being ruled by foreigners.
> 
> Had nothing to do with "Captialism" or "Communism", which all sound great in theory but didn't really happen in the real world.
> 
> Shit, the reason why the whole west didn't collapse into Communism is because the capitalists made a bunch of concessions to labor....
> 
> But again- failure of a nation that didn't have anything to do with a senile old actor and his harpy of a wife reading Astrological Tables....
Click to expand...


You want links?  Fine...  Poland 'to ban' Che Guevara image - Telegraph

The fact is...Poland hates communism because under that system the Russians committed countless atrocities against the Polish people.  They executed 22,000 Poles in one instance...killing army officers...police officers...priests...business owners...basically anyone of standing in the country that could offer resistance to the communist take-over in the Katyn Forest Massacre.  

The USSR failed because it brutally repressed people both in the Soviet Union and in it's satellite nations like Poland.  When you compare the Soviets to other empires reflect on the fact that the Soviets flamed out in spectacular fashion in a mere fifty years.  The Roman Empire lasted about 500 years.  The British Empire had a run of about 350 years.  The United States has lasted over 220 years.  Communist Cuba on the other hand has only been around about 50 years and is now abandoning communism because their economy is in such bad shape.  Communist China brought in "trade zones" to spur economic growth because it's economy was floundering so badly.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> You want links?  Fine...  Poland 'to ban' Che Guevara image - Telegraph



From your post... 



> Poland's equality minister, Elzbieta Radziszewska, _*wants to*_ expand a Polish law prohibiting the production of fascist and totalitarian propaganda so that it includes clothing and anything else that could carry an image related to an authoritarian system.



So they didn't ban it, they just WANT TO.  Because, clearly, nothing says capitalism like banning an image on a t-shirt worn by disaffected college kids.  

Did the kid in the Che T-shirt  bang the cheerleader you had your eye on after reading her some passages from _The Motorcycle Diaries_?   Cause ya got to let it go, man. 

(Pssst. At this point, I'm just mocking you, Corky!) 




> The fact is...Poland hates communism because under that system the Russians committed countless atrocities against the Polish people.  They executed 22,000 Poles in one instance...killing army officers...police officers...priests...business owners...basically anyone of standing in the country that could offer resistance to the communist take-over in the Katyn Forest Massacre.



Yeah, that's what you do when you conquer a country. But again, you miss the point. They hate RUSSIANS, not COMMUNISTS.  And Russians were doing nasty things to Poles long before the bad old Commies came along. 





> The USSR failed because it brutally repressed people both in the Soviet Union and in it's satellite nations like Poland.  When you compare the Soviets to other empires reflect on the fact that the Soviets flamed out in spectacular fashion in a mere fifty years.  The Roman Empire lasted about 500 years.  The British Empire had a run of about 350 years.  The United States has lasted over 220 years.  Communist Cuba on the other hand has only been around about 50 years and is now abandoning communism because their economy is in such bad shape.  Communist China brought in "trade zones" to spur economic growth because it's economy was floundering so badly.



Actually, lots of empires flame out pretty quickly.  Alexander's Empire only lasted as long as he did.  Same with Napoleon's.  

Also, the US didn't really practice imperialism that much (Unless you count the genocide of the Native Americans, but you wingnuts like to pretend that didn't happen.)  Our one attempt at it, subjectgating the Philippines was an absolute fucking disaster.  We killed half a million Filipinos for really nothing.  

But keep pretending this is about "systems" that were never really put into practice and not so much about nations and how they relate to each other.  Because really, somewhere, you hope that cheerleader sees the error of her ways.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive are the biggest liars I've ever met
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you bury your head in the sand when it comes to the Reagan administration. His administration holds the record for convicted liars. Not just opinions and talking points,but actual convictions for being liars. Not telling lies about blow jobs or to promote political issue, but lies to promote death, violence and illegal war. Lies that allowed and caused untold numbers of people to die because of his stupidity and dishonesty. Lies that gave birth to the terrorism that brought down buildings and have us fighting a war against terrorism today, over twenty years after The Geezer left office.
Click to expand...


No, it's because you lie about EVERYTHING from FDR's greatness, McCarthyism, the Civil Right record of Democrats, the success of Progressive economics and the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan.

Everything a lie

FDR had an economy worse that the 7 Biblical Lean Years, you call that great

McCarthy correctly warned us that more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR, and you say he used his House Unamerican Activities Committee to blacklist Hollywood writers

The Democrats supported slavery, eugenics, the KKK and LBJ kept Ike's Civil Rights Bill bottled up in the Senate from 1957-1964, then passed the identical bill as his own

Ronald Reagan took a bullet from the Establishment and then went on to free Eastern Europe and defeat Soviet Communism


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> No, it's because you lie about EVERYTHING from FDR's greatness, McCarthyism, the Civil Right record of Democrats, the success of Progressive economics and the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Everything a lie
> 
> FDR had an economy worse that the 7 Biblical Lean Years, you call that great



It was still better than the economy that Hoover left him. IN 1933, when FDR took office, the unemployment rate was at 25%. It was down to 16% in 1936. It was down to 14% in 1940. Then WWII broke out and it dropped to 4% and even after the war, mostly stayed low. 

United States Unemployment Rate 1920?2012 | Infoplease.com

That was until your boy Reagan fucked it up and destroyed the middle class.  




> McCarthy correctly warned us that more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR, and you say he used his House Unamerican Activities Committee to blacklist Hollywood writers



McCarthy was a cheap demagogue who was used and thrown away by the GOP when he got too full of himself.  He was kind of the Sarah Palin of his day.. except not as stupid. 



> The Democrats supported slavery, eugenics, the KKK and LBJ kept Ike's Civil Rights Bill bottled up in the Senate from 1957-1964, then passed the identical bill as his own



Southern Democrats did that. Today those same people are Red State Republicans. 



> Ronald Reagan took a bullet from the Establishment and then went on to free Eastern Europe and defeat Soviet Communism



Yup.  In fact he so defeated them that they were totally still in power and George Bush had to run on a platform of "Dukakis can't keep you safe but I can!"


----------



## Camp

John Poindexter


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, it's because you lie about EVERYTHING from FDR's greatness, McCarthyism, the Civil Right record of Democrats, the success of Progressive economics and the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> Everything a lie
> 
> FDR had an economy worse that the 7 Biblical Lean Years, you call that great
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was still better than the economy that Hoover left him. IN 1933, when FDR took office, the unemployment rate was at 25%. It was down to 16% in 1936. It was down to 14% in 1940. Then WWII broke out and it dropped to 4% and even after the war, mostly stayed low.
> 
> United States Unemployment Rate 1920?2012 | Infoplease.com
> 
> That was until your boy Reagan fucked it up and destroyed the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCarthy correctly warned us that more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR, and you say he used his House Unamerican Activities Committee to blacklist Hollywood writers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> McCarthy was a cheap demagogue who was used and thrown away by the GOP when he got too full of himself.  He was kind of the Sarah Palin of his day.. except not as stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats supported slavery, eugenics, the KKK and LBJ kept Ike's Civil Rights Bill bottled up in the Senate from 1957-1964, then passed the identical bill as his own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats did that. Today those same people are Red State Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan took a bullet from the Establishment and then went on to free Eastern Europe and defeat Soviet Communism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  In fact he so defeated them that they were totally still in power and George Bush had to run on a platform of "Dukakis can't keep you safe but I can!"
Click to expand...


^  See what I mean?


----------



## JoeB131

yeah, guy, I know you need your own version of history where Hoover was a great president and McCarthy really did have Commies hiding under his bed... 

reality bites!


----------



## Camp

Alan D. Fiers
Rita LaVelle
Richard Secord
John Poindexter

Four people who helped make the Reagan administration the most corrupt andministration in American history.


----------



## editec

Reagan spend borrowed money like a Keynesian.

Not surprising given that he was a Keynesian and a STATIST, too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> yeah, guy, I know you need your own version of history where Hoover was a great president and McCarthy really did have Commies hiding under his bed...
> 
> reality bites!



Hoover sucked, Coolidge and Haring were truly great

FDR stole Hoover's Progressive Stalinist economic ideas and mutated them into the worst economy in human history

McCarthy was right, more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR. I call that a disaster, you call that victory


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, guy, I know you need your own version of history where Hoover was a great president and McCarthy really did have Commies hiding under his bed...
> 
> reality bites!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoover sucked, Coolidge and Haring were truly great
> 
> FDR stole Hoover's Progressive Stalinist economic ideas and mutated them into the worst economy in human history
Click to expand...


Herbert Hoover was a Stalinist now?  

You know what the toughtest part of being a Republican is?  Your inability to even like your own guys.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Alan D. Fiers
> Rita LaVelle
> Richard Secord
> John Poindexter
> 
> Four people who helped make the Reagan administration the most corrupt andministration in American history.



That's highly significant


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, guy, I know you need your own version of history where Hoover was a great president and McCarthy really did have Commies hiding under his bed...
> 
> reality bites!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoover sucked, Coolidge and Haring were truly great
> 
> FDR stole Hoover's Progressive Stalinist economic ideas and mutated them into the worst economy in human history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Herbert Hoover was a Stalinist now?
> 
> You know what the toughtest part of being a Republican is?  Your inability to even like your own guys.
Click to expand...


He was a Soviet-style central planner. Are you totally ignorant of history?  DO you know anything about Hoover?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

editec said:


> Reagan spend borrowed money like a Keynesian.
> 
> Not surprising given that he was a Keynesian and a STATIST, too.



Uh huh


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> He was a Soviet-style central planner. Are you totally ignorant of history?  DO you know anything about Hoover?



Central Planning? OMG!!! THe HORROR of it all!  

Seriously, dude?  

I'm starting to wonder what kind of crazy you are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> He was a Soviet-style central planner. Are you totally ignorant of history?  DO you know anything about Hoover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Central Planning? OMG!!! THe HORROR of it all!
> 
> Seriously, dude?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder what kind of crazy you are.
Click to expand...


I don't know the depth of your ignorance, it may be a Laurentian Abyss, but it's clear you don't know anything about Hoover, Coolidge or FDR


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alan D. Fiers
> Rita LaVelle
> Richard Secord
> John Poindexter
> 
> Four people who helped make the Reagan administration the most corrupt andministration in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's highly significant
Click to expand...


Here are some to add to the list

James Watt
Robert McFarlane
Elliot Abrams
Claire George

All these folks committed crimes.


----------



## Meathead

Over 1200 posts and for what? Reagan's place as a great American leader is secure. No amount of butt hurt and whining is ever going to change that.

Get over it, that bird has flown. You need to start looking for excuses for Obama now. That would be more difficult than trying to effect even Reagan's legacy, and far more contemporary.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alan D. Fiers
> Rita LaVelle
> Richard Secord
> John Poindexter
> 
> Four people who helped make the Reagan administration the most corrupt andministration in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's highly significant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some to add to the list
> 
> James Watt
> Robert McFarlane
> Elliot Abrams
> Claire George
> 
> All these folks committed crimes.
Click to expand...


Uh huh and Poland is still free from Soviet Communism...go figure


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You want links?  Fine...  Poland 'to ban' Che Guevara image - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poland's equality minister, Elzbieta Radziszewska, _*wants to*_ expand a Polish law prohibiting the production of fascist and totalitarian propaganda so that it includes clothing and anything else that could carry an image related to an authoritarian system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they didn't ban it, they just WANT TO.  Because, clearly, nothing says capitalism like banning an image on a t-shirt worn by disaffected college kids.
> 
> Did the kid in the Che T-shirt  bang the cheerleader you had your eye on after reading her some passages from _The Motorcycle Diaries_?   Cause ya got to let it go, man.
> 
> (Pssst. At this point, I'm just mocking you, Corky!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is...Poland hates communism because under that system the Russians committed countless atrocities against the Polish people.  They executed 22,000 Poles in one instance...killing army officers...police officers...priests...business owners...basically anyone of standing in the country that could offer resistance to the communist take-over in the Katyn Forest Massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what you do when you conquer a country. But again, you miss the point. They hate RUSSIANS, not COMMUNISTS.  And Russians were doing nasty things to Poles long before the bad old Commies came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR failed because it brutally repressed people both in the Soviet Union and in it's satellite nations like Poland.  When you compare the Soviets to other empires reflect on the fact that the Soviets flamed out in spectacular fashion in a mere fifty years.  The Roman Empire lasted about 500 years.  The British Empire had a run of about 350 years.  The United States has lasted over 220 years.  Communist Cuba on the other hand has only been around about 50 years and is now abandoning communism because their economy is in such bad shape.  Communist China brought in "trade zones" to spur economic growth because it's economy was floundering so badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, lots of empires flame out pretty quickly.  Alexander's Empire only lasted as long as he did.  Same with Napoleon's.
> 
> Also, the US didn't really practice imperialism that much (Unless you count the genocide of the Native Americans, but you wingnuts like to pretend that didn't happen.)  Our one attempt at it, subjectgating the Philippines was an absolute fucking disaster.  We killed half a million Filipinos for really nothing.
> 
> But keep pretending this is about "systems" that were never really put into practice and not so much about nations and how they relate to each other.  Because really, somewhere, you hope that cheerleader sees the error of her ways.
Click to expand...


They not only "wanted" to ban communist images...THEY DID!  Poland: Your Ché Guevara T-shirt can land you in jail - CSMonitor.com  Before you "mock" someone...you might want to make sure they weren't CORRECT!  Duh?

When you conquer a country the thing to do is march tens of thousands of the leading citizens out into the woods and shoot them?  Really?  Kindly name all the countries that have done that, Joe!  Kindly name where Russians prior to the Communists taking over had done anything remotely like that to Poland!  The truth is, despite your doing ethical gymnastics to excuse what communists have done, they have a long history of committing atrocities on the people they rule.  Mao did it...Stalin did it...Castro did it.  

As for Alexander and Napoleon?  Those "empires" were less of a political system then they were a cult of personality.  Both were created by a single strong figure and both faded away upon the demise of that person.

The United States didn't practice Imperialism?  Really?  So I guess we didn't take over and run Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, a large part of Panama, Samoa and the Virgin Islands?  I have news for you...we practiced Imperialism...we just didn't carry it to the extreme of other European nations but then again we didn't really HAVE to considering we were in possession of vast quantities of land and resources that they didn't possess.

The person here who is "pretending" is yourself, Joe...you're "pretending" that communism as practiced in the last century in different places around the globe hasn't failed rather dramatically.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

naomibee said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan gave them hope on which they capitalized. With weak-ass presidents like Carter or Obama in office, the USSR might still be here.
> 
> Reagan set out to change America after the Johnson-Nixon/Ford-Carter string of disasters, he ended up changing the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was the only good president we all ever had. heck we named our son after him back in the 80s.
Click to expand...


Now I know this poster is being sarcastic and trying to be funny obviously.

Meatbrain troll here is right that Reagan changed the world,he changed the world alright,getting us into a deficit larger than all previous presidents COMBINED and setting the record for  the most corrupt administration ever at the time.

He changed the world alright,changed it in the WORST way imiaginable for a president being all these things below.

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 
Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> the ussr had been running on fumes for years CrusaderFrank.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.
> 
> Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone.  He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government.  But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what pisses me off is that we are going TRILLIONS into debt while the rich are living large at the expense of the rest of us....
> 
> The rich didn't need tax cuts.  At least not until we paid off the 6 Trillion in debt that Bush's Daddy and Ray-Gun incurred.  Instead, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and then spent Trillions avenging his Daddy on Saddam.  So when he left, we had 11 Trillion in debt, a busted economy and now way to pay our obligations.   And you think the guy was a good president, apparently.
> 
> you just to love the logic of TROLLSTYLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the truly ignorant buy into the notion that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and failed to act.  The truth is that he was given a vague warning that Al Queda wanted to strike against the US in a daily briefing that was one of many briefings that warned of the same thing.  Blaming Bush for failing to act from THAT briefing is a cheap shot.  Always was...always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, he was given a warning and did ... nothing.  Sometimes you got to take the cheap shots because they are so obvious.  I'd give Bush a pass for his conduct before 9/11 if his conduct after 9/11 wasn't so much worse.  Invading the wrong country, blowing billions of dollars, wasting thousands of lives, ignoring the advice of his generals, torture, spying, and so on.
> TROLLSTYLE always ignores that you take him to school all the time.hee hee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the tragedy in New Orleans?  George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes.  George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city.  George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies.  George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans.  George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm.  The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water.  People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them.  I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina!  Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like blaming a rape victim for her attack.  "Well, she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood, at that time of night. She really has no one to blame but herself."
> 
> again you got to love the logic of TROLLSTYLE.comedy gold.
> 
> Incidently, before they put the Horse Show Guy, Heckava Job Brownie in charge of FEMA, FEMA was pretty good at its job.  That's because it had professionals in charge.  Not political hacks.  And when Obama put professionals back in charge, it did a pretty good job.
> 
> Notice that during Sandy, Obama didn't blame Christy and Bloomberg for the problems. The job just got done.
Click to expand...


sure was fun watching you take trollsytley to school.he can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, Joe...you look at countries that for two generations knew nothing but communism and collective planning and then struggled to implement free market economies and come to the conclusion that they went BACK to communism because IT worked and capitalism didn't.  Yes, there were people in Poland that took comfort in being told what to do and wanted the return of the communists because the new freedoms scared the shit out of them.  It took awhile for that sentiment to die out.
> 
> So tell me, Joe...is the SLD still running Poland these days?  Are the communists in control?  The TRUTH is that communism is in such ill repute in Poland these days that it is illegal to display the hammer & sickle or even Che Guevara tee shirts.  You do so and they'll put you in prison for up to 2 years!  Yeah...they are just LOVING communism in Poland!!!  (eye-roll)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because the hammer and sickle are seen as symbols of RUSSIA, not communism.
> 
> And, yeah, the next group of idiots who ran Poland decided to chuck free speech and democracy and you think this is a good thing?  really?
> 
> Here's the reality.  The fall of the USSR was a failure of Imperialism, not Communism.
> 
> Now, quite the contrary, I'm not defending Communism per se. It's kind of hard to have that discussion with people who think the glory of capitalism is that we should let poor children starve because their parents can't find jobs, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a Communist.  That's the SICKNESS that has overtaken the GOP, and why I had to walk away from it.
> 
> But from a realistic, historical persective, the fall of the USSR was the failure of a nation, not a system. And it certainly had nothing to do with a senile old actor making a speech.  Or spending us into 3 trillion in debt buying $600 toilet seats.
Click to expand...




Now matter how many times you explain that to Crusader Retard,you  might as well be talking to a wall.you got to remember,you are talking to a loyal cousin of reagans so he is going to ignore every single bad thing you say about him.


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Once again, Joe...you kind of know a little bit about what you're talking about but your knowledge is so superficial that in the end you're totally clueless.
> 
> Bush didn't just give tax cuts to "rich people"...Bush gave tax cuts to everyone.  He had this radical concept that the American people should be able to spend their OWN money better than the Federal Government.  But since you hate rich people SO much that pisses you off to no end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what pisses me off is that we are going TRILLIONS into debt while the rich are living large at the expense of the rest of us....
> 
> The rich didn't need tax cuts.  At least not until we paid off the 6 Trillion in debt that Bush's Daddy and Ray-Gun incurred.  Instead, Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and then spent Trillions avenging his Daddy on Saddam.  So when he left, we had 11 Trillion in debt, a busted economy and now way to pay our obligations.   And you think the guy was a good president, apparently.
> 
> you just to love the logic of TROLLSTYLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, he was given a warning and did ... nothing.  Sometimes you got to take the cheap shots because they are so obvious.  I'd give Bush a pass for his conduct before 9/11 if his conduct after 9/11 wasn't so much worse.  Invading the wrong country, blowing billions of dollars, wasting thousands of lives, ignoring the advice of his generals, torture, spying, and so on.
> TROLLSTYLE always ignores that you take him to school all the time.hee hee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the tragedy in New Orleans?  George Bush didn't build a city below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes.  George Bush didn't alter the wet lands that had previously offered some protection to that city.  George Bush didn't line his pockets with the Federal dollars that New Orleans received for decades to fix it's levies.  George Bush wasn't the Mayor who declined to issue a timely mandatory evacuation order as a possible category IV hurricane headed directly towards New Orleans.  George Bush wasn't one of the idiots that lived in a hurricane prone area yet didn't do the first thing to prepare for an imminent storm.  The Federal response to something like a hurricane is ALWAYS slow...that's why if you live in an area like the Gulf you're told constantly to prepare to go days without power, food and water.  People suffered in New Orleans because THEY were totally unprepared and then expected FEMA to be there immediately for them.  I'm sorry, Joe but you can't fix stupid...and there was a LOT of stupid in New Orleans for Katrina!  Blaming the result on Bush is simply another cheap shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like blaming a rape victim for her attack.  "Well, she shouldn't have been dressed like that, in that neighborhood, at that time of night. She really has no one to blame but herself."
> 
> again you got to love the logic of TROLLSTYLE.comedy gold.
> 
> Incidently, before they put the Horse Show Guy, Heckava Job Brownie in charge of FEMA, FEMA was pretty good at its job.  That's because it had professionals in charge.  Not political hacks.  And when Obama put professionals back in charge, it did a pretty good job.
> 
> Notice that during Sandy, Obama didn't blame Christy and Bloomberg for the problems. The job just got done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure was fun watching you take trollsytley to school.he can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is.
Click to expand...


Only a totally oblivious person would see what's happened in this string as Joe taking ANYONE to school!  He's been shown to be completely incorrect on one contention after another.  Stick to making fart comments...it's what you do best.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## Oldstyle

Much better...*now* you're doing what you do best!


----------



## Oldstyle

Gee, Joe...you've got the fart guy on your side...how could you go wrong with support like THAT!!!


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alan D. Fiers
> Rita LaVelle
> Richard Secord
> John Poindexter
> 
> Four people who helped make the Reagan administration the most corrupt andministration in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's highly significant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are some to add to the list
> 
> James Watt
> Robert McFarlane
> Elliot Abrams
> Claire George
> 
> All these folks committed crimes.
Click to expand...


I left out the Secretary of Defense

Casper Weinberger


----------



## PrometheusBound

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, guy, I know you need your own version of history where Hoover was a great president and McCarthy really did have Commies hiding under his bed...
> 
> reality bites!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR stole Hoover's Progressive Stalinist economic ideas and mutated them into the worst economy in human history
Click to expand...


The SCROTUS crippled the New Deal.   Even so, FDR managed to not only help enough to get him continually re-elected, but also created an economy rich enough to save Great Britain and a people confident enough to defeat Germany and Japan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's highly significant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some to add to the list
> 
> James Watt
> Robert McFarlane
> Elliot Abrams
> Claire George
> 
> All these folks committed crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I left out the Secretary of Defense
> 
> Casper Weinberger
Click to expand...


*Countries freed by Reagan*

East Germany
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Romania
Albania
Yugoslavia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania


----------



## Camp

PrometheusBound said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, guy, I know you need your own version of history where Hoover was a great president and McCarthy really did have Commies hiding under his bed...
> 
> reality bites!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR stole Hoover's Progressive Stalinist economic ideas and mutated them into the worst economy in human history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCROTUS crippled the New Deal.   Even so, FDR managed to not only help enough to get him continually re-elected, but also created an economy rich enough to save Great Britain and a people confident enough to defeat Germany and Japan.
Click to expand...


That dirty socialist FDR. We still have put up with all those damn dams he built while he was President. Like, over 70 years we have had to use those things made the country build. Socialist big government intervention at it's worst. Anything left that was built during the Reagan years?
And don't you just hate that Blue Ridge Parkway.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PrometheusBound said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, guy, I know you need your own version of history where Hoover was a great president and McCarthy really did have Commies hiding under his bed...
> 
> reality bites!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR stole Hoover's Progressive Stalinist economic ideas and mutated them into the worst economy in human history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCROTUS crippled the New Deal.   Even so, FDR managed to not only help enough to get him continually re-elected, but also created an economy rich enough to save Great Britain and a people confident enough to defeat Germany and Japan.
Click to expand...


20% average unemployment for 7 years is a "rich economy"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR stole Hoover's Progressive Stalinist economic ideas and mutated them into the worst economy in human history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SCROTUS crippled the New Deal.   Even so, FDR managed to not only help enough to get him continually re-elected, but also created an economy rich enough to save Great Britain and a people confident enough to defeat Germany and Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That dirty socialist FDR. We still have put up with all those damn dams he built while he was President. Like, over 70 years we have had to use those things made the country build. Socialist big government intervention at it's worst. Anything left that was built during the Reagan years?
> And don't you just hate that Blue Ridge Parkway.
Click to expand...


Know why it's called the Hoover Dam?

Any ideas?

Ask JoeB he's a history bluff, er I mean history buff


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCROTUS crippled the New Deal.   Even so, FDR managed to not only help enough to get him continually re-elected, but also created an economy rich enough to save Great Britain and a people confident enough to defeat Germany and Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That dirty socialist FDR. We still have put up with all those damn dams he built while he was President. Like, over 70 years we have had to use those things made the country build. Socialist big government intervention at it's worst. Anything left that was built during the Reagan years?
> And don't you just hate that Blue Ridge Parkway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know why it's called the Hoover Dam?
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Ask JoeB he's a history bluff, er I mean history buff
Click to expand...


I don't have to ask Joe. The Hoover Dam was started under Hoover in 1931 and finished under FDR in 1935. Do you want a list of the ones started under FDR? It's a long list, just like the list of criminals in the Reagan administration and the terrorist attacks under Reagan's command.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> That dirty socialist FDR. We still have put up with all those damn dams he built while he was President. Like, over 70 years we have had to use those things made the country build. Socialist big government intervention at it's worst. Anything left that was built during the Reagan years?
> And don't you just hate that Blue Ridge Parkway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know why it's called the Hoover Dam?
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Ask JoeB he's a history bluff, er I mean history buff
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to ask Joe. The Hoover Dam was started under Hoover in 1931 and finished under FDR in 1935. Do you want a list of the ones started under FDR? It's a long list, just like the list of criminals in the Reagan administration and the terrorist attacks under Reagan's command.
Click to expand...


No, hun. I'm well aware of how FDR thought that only the government was capable of building anything. Why do you think the economy sucked so badly for 7 whole years?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Know why it's called the Hoover Dam?
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Ask JoeB he's a history bluff, er I mean history buff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to ask Joe. The Hoover Dam was started under Hoover in 1931 and finished under FDR in 1935. Do you want a list of the ones started under FDR? It's a long list, just like the list of criminals in the Reagan administration and the terrorist attacks under Reagan's command.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, hun. I'm well aware of how FDR thought that only the government was capable of building anything. Why do you think the economy sucked so badly for 7 whole years?
Click to expand...

Hun? What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dogstyle, calling you retarded is an insult to Retards..."  JoeB
> 
> You know what, Joe?  I've patiently responded to each of your "views" in this thread...showing why it is that I think you're wrong.  I haven't called you childish names.  You on the other hand have decided that insults are an argument.  In what way is that different than 9/11 and his "fart" comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old worn out propaganda and talking points gets old and boring. 9/11 thinks they smell like farts. Joe gives interesting and often original analysis and interpretations of historical events based on factual data.
Click to expand...




so very true what you said about Joe. and glad to see SOMEONE here understands what i mean with those farts. old worn out propaganda that has been debunked over and over again by myself,you,dante,joe and many others so fart comments are the only thing that the reaganut retards are worthy of getting since they constantly play dodgeball ling when they are cornered with facts thehy cant refute changing the subject and evading them.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> He was a Soviet-style central planner. Are you totally ignorant of history?  DO you know anything about Hoover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Central Planning? OMG!!! THe HORROR of it all!
> 
> Seriously, dude?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder what kind of crazy you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know the depth of your ignorance, it may be a Laurentian Abyss, but it's clear you don't know anything about Hoover, Coolidge or FDR
Click to expand...


Guy, so according to you, not only are all the history books wrong, but apparently, so were the people who lived through that time period. 

People who voted in FDR FOUR TIMES, but threw out Hoover at the first oppurtunity.  

Coolidge.  Also really considered a moron.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Know why it's called the Hoover Dam?
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Ask JoeB he's a history bluff, er I mean history buff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to ask Joe. The Hoover Dam was started under Hoover in 1931 and finished under FDR in 1935. Do you want a list of the ones started under FDR? It's a long list, just like the list of criminals in the Reagan administration and the terrorist attacks under Reagan's command.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, hun. I'm well aware of how FDR thought that only the government was capable of building anything. Why do you think the economy sucked so badly for 7 whole years?
Click to expand...


It sucked so badly because all the wealth vanished under your boy Hoover.  And then the whole world economy collapse. Then we had a ecological disaster called the Dust Bowl.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Central Planning? OMG!!! THe HORROR of it all!
> 
> Seriously, dude?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder what kind of crazy you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the depth of your ignorance, it may be a Laurentian Abyss, but it's clear you don't know anything about Hoover, Coolidge or FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, so according to you, not only are all the history books wrong, but apparently, so were the people who lived through that time period.
> 
> People who voted in FDR FOUR TIMES, but threw out Hoover at the first oppurtunity.
> 
> Coolidge.  Also really considered a moron.
Click to expand...


Coolidge dropped unemployment from 18% down to 4% in 2 years.

If you weren't so ignorant you'd know that


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> 
> The United States didn't practice Imperialism?  Really?  So I guess we didn't take over and run Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, a large part of Panama, Samoa and the Virgin Islands?  I have news for you...we practiced Imperialism...we just didn't carry it to the extreme of other European nations but then again we didn't really HAVE to considering we were in possession of vast quantities of land and resources that they didn't possess.
> 
> The person here who is "pretending" is yourself, Joe...you're "pretending" that communism as practiced in the last century in different places around the globe hasn't failed rather dramatically.



Corky, a few crappy islands is not an "empire", dude.   We avoided Imperialism because, thankfully, it was against our nature, which is why we are the only superpower left. 

Oh, hey, how did that imperialism in Cuba work out for us again?  I heard that some dashing young fellows threw us out. 

When a country actually "practices" communism, you can get back to  me.


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some to add to the list
> 
> James Watt
> Robert McFarlane
> Elliot Abrams
> Claire George
> 
> All these folks committed crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I left out the Secretary of Defense
> 
> Casper Weinberger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Countries freed by Reagan*
> 
> East Germany
> Poland
> Hungary
> Bulgaria
> Czechoslovakia
> Romania
> Albania
> Yugoslavia
> Estonia
> Latvia
> Lithuania
Click to expand...


freed? This guy was actually in the trenches, doing the grunt work, BEFORE 1990: Lech Wa&#322;&#281;sa


> From early on, Wa&#322;&#281;sa was interested in workers' concerns; in 1968 he encouraged shipyard colleagues to boycott official rallies that condemned recent student strikes.[8] A charismatic leader,[10] he was an organizer of the illegal *1970* strikes at the Gda&#324;sk Shipyard (the Polish 1970 protests) when workers protested the government's decree raising food prices; he was considered for chairman of the strike committee


----------



## JoeB131

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to ask Joe. The Hoover Dam was started under Hoover in 1931 and finished under FDR in 1935. Do you want a list of the ones started under FDR? It's a long list, just like the list of criminals in the Reagan administration and the terrorist attacks under Reagan's command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, hun. I'm well aware of how FDR thought that only the government was capable of building anything. Why do you think the economy sucked so badly for 7 whole years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hun? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


Too much listening to Glenn Beck damages the brain....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to ask Joe. The Hoover Dam was started under Hoover in 1931 and finished under FDR in 1935. Do you want a list of the ones started under FDR? It's a long list, just like the list of criminals in the Reagan administration and the terrorist attacks under Reagan's command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, hun. I'm well aware of how FDR thought that only the government was capable of building anything. Why do you think the economy sucked so badly for 7 whole years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sucked so badly because all the wealth vanished under your boy Hoover.  And then the whole world economy collapse. Then we had a ecological disaster called the Dust Bowl.
Click to expand...


The federal reserve strangled the economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply and then we had an economic disaster called the New Deal


----------



## JoeB131

You mean they saved what they could from the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street?  

the New Deal was awesome.  Guy, you clearly don't know people like my grandparents and parents who lived through that, thought FDR was a great man. 

Again, no one is naming things after Coolidge...


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> The United States didn't practice Imperialism?  Really?  So I guess we didn't take over and run Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, a large part of Panama, Samoa and the Virgin Islands?  I have news for you...we practiced Imperialism...we just didn't carry it to the extreme of other European nations but then again we didn't really HAVE to considering we were in possession of vast quantities of land and resources that they didn't possess.
> 
> The person here who is "pretending" is yourself, Joe...you're "pretending" that communism as practiced in the last century in different places around the globe hasn't failed rather dramatically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corky, a few crappy islands is not an "empire", dude.   We avoided Imperialism because, thankfully, it was against our nature, which is why we are the only superpower left.
> 
> Oh, hey, how did that imperialism in Cuba work out for us again?  I heard that some dashing young fellows threw us out.
> 
> When a country actually "practices" communism, you can get back to  me.
Click to expand...


I "love" when you folks that think communism is such a wonderful thing fall back on the claim that the communist nations that have failed weren't REALLY practicing true communism and therefore don't count!  That's SUCH a bullshit excuse!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> You mean they saved what they could from the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street?
> 
> the New Deal was awesome.  Guy, you clearly don't know people like my grandparents and parents who lived through that, thought FDR was a great man.
> 
> Again, no one is naming things after Coolidge...



Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of American history.  Calvin Coolidge was actually a remarkable President...one of my favorites as a matter of fact.  The best way to describe him would be as the "anti-Obama".  You should read up on the man.


----------



## thanatos144

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they saved what they could from the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street?
> 
> the New Deal was awesome.  Guy, you clearly don't know people like my grandparents and parents who lived through that, thought FDR was a great man.
> 
> Again, no one is naming things after Coolidge...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of American history.  Calvin Coolidge was actually a remarkable President...one of my favorites as a matter of fact.  The best way to describe him would be as the "anti-Obama".  You should read up on the man.
Click to expand...


Why would he start reading history now?


----------



## editec

Meathead said:


> Over 1200 posts and for what? Reagan's place as a great American leader is secure. No amount of butt hurt and whining is ever going to change that.
> 
> Get over it, that bird has flown. You need to start looking for excuses for Obama now. That would be more difficult than trying to effect even Reagan's legacy, and far more contemporary.



For what?

Just to counterbalance the historical revisionism the REAGANISTA continue to spew, lad.

He's a legend in YOUR mind, sport.

Anyone who actually reads history, (or remembers it in many cases) knows that about half the credit given to REAGAN is not only wrong its 100% wrong.

Reagan was a BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG SPENDING, BIG BORROWING, TAX INCREASING Kensyian, Lad.

IF you do not know this?

READ the records, lad.


----------



## Meathead

editec said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1200 posts and for what? Reagan's place as a great American leader is secure. No amount of butt hurt and whining is ever going to change that.
> 
> Get over it, that bird has flown. You need to start looking for excuses for Obama now. That would be more difficult than trying to effect even Reagan's legacy, and far more contemporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For what?
> 
> Just to counterbalance the historical revisionism the REAGANISTA continue to spew, lad.
> 
> He's a legend in YOUR mind, sport.
> 
> Anyone who actually reads history, (or remembers it in many cases) knows that about half the credit given to REAGAN is not only wrong its 100% wrong.
> 
> Reagan was a BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG SPENDING, BIG BORROWING, TAX INCREASING Kensyian, Lad.
> 
> IF you do not know this?
> 
> READ the records, lad.
Click to expand...

Was there and seen it. That stuff might work on intellect featherweights like JoeB, Camp and yourself, but for the rest it is pig swill. Stop whining and get a life


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I "love" when you folks that think communism is such a wonderful thing fall back on the claim that the communist nations that have failed weren't REALLY practicing true communism and therefore don't count!  That's SUCH a bullshit excuse!



Guy, where do I ever say communism was "wonderful"?  

Please link to the post.  I'll wait. 

Saying, "Communism didn't do the things you blame it for" is not thinking it's wonderful.  

But when Dealing with idiots like you and CrusaderRabbit who think that Herbert Hoover was a Stalinist, you really do have to set down some parameters.  

Such as when POLES throw Russians (their historical oppressors) out of their country, it isn't because something called "Communism" failed.  

For the record, Communism doesn't work because of something called Human Nature.  

And Capitalism doesn't work for pretty much the same reason.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they saved what they could from the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street?
> 
> the New Deal was awesome.  Guy, you clearly don't know people like my grandparents and parents who lived through that, thought FDR was a great man.
> 
> Again, no one is naming things after Coolidge...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of American history.  Calvin Coolidge was actually a remarkable President...one of my favorites as a matter of fact.  The best way to describe him would be as the "anti-Obama".  You should read up on the man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would he start reading history now?
Click to expand...


I have. He was do-nothing tool of industrialists who blanchely sat by while they turned our entire economy into a house of cards that collapsed... 

But let's look at where Historians rate him. 

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup. Every one of them lists  him in the bottom half, either the lowest quartile or the second lowest quartile.  

As opposed to FDR, who is consistantly rated in the top quarter of presidents. In fact, he's usually rated between 1-3.  

(By the way, these same surveys rate Reagan anywhere from top to third quartile...so the whole, But that's just liberals talking doesn't fly.)


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> You mean they saved what they could from the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street?
> 
> the New Deal was awesome.  Guy, you clearly don't know people like my grandparents and parents who lived through that, thought FDR was a great man.
> 
> Again, no one is naming things after Coolidge...



Crazy Casino? We had not one, but transformational technologies occurring during the 20's: mass production and electrification.  Is that what you mean by Crazy casino? All those railroad, energy, and manufacturing companies going gangbusters?  Maybe there was 5-10% froth in the DOW, but there was real genuine economic activity behind most of it


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they saved what they could from the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street?
> 
> the New Deal was awesome.  Guy, you clearly don't know people like my grandparents and parents who lived through that, thought FDR was a great man.
> 
> Again, no one is naming things after Coolidge...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crazy Casino? We had not one, but transformational technologies occurring during the 20's: mass production and electrification.  Is that what you mean by Crazy casino? All those railroad, energy, and manufacturing companies going gangbusters?  Maybe there was 5-10% froth in the DOW, but there was real genuine economic activity behind most of it
Click to expand...


But those things had nothing to do with Calvin Coolidge. 

What I mean by crazy Casino is what happened in 1929 is the same thing that happened in 2008- stocks were overvalued and the stock market was unregulated, and a lot of wealth disappeared down sinkholes.  

Because Coolidge was one of these guys who thinks we can trust the wealthy.  

Herbert Hoover, although an awful administrator, had this observation- 

"The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists.  They're too damned greedy!" 

Now, there was a buildup of the middle class that started with Teddy Roosevelt and continued to grow under Woodrow Wilson.  

But what really was the game changer leading up to the 1920's was that after WWI, the US went from being an importer to an exporter of manufactured goods.  Part of that because we ramped up manufacturing to meet needs for World War I (first supplying the allies and then ourselves) and partially because the Russian Revolution ended Russia's position as the top grain exporter.  

(Again, your boy the Tsar exported Russia's wheat to Europe while Russian Peasents starved.... and you wonder why the Commies shot his ass.)


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they saved what they could from the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street?
> 
> the New Deal was awesome.  Guy, you clearly don't know people like my grandparents and parents who lived through that, thought FDR was a great man.
> 
> Again, no one is naming things after Coolidge...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crazy Casino? We had not one, but transformational technologies occurring during the 20's: mass production and electrification.  Is that what you mean by Crazy casino? All those railroad, energy, and manufacturing companies going gangbusters?  Maybe there was 5-10% froth in the DOW, but there was real genuine economic activity behind most of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But those things had nothing to do with Calvin Coolidge.
> 
> What I mean by crazy Casino is what happened in 1929 is the same thing that happened in 2008- stocks were overvalued and the stock market was unregulated, and a lot of wealth disappeared down sinkholes.
> 
> Because Coolidge was one of these guys who thinks we can trust the wealthy.
> 
> Herbert Hoover, although an awful administrator, had this observation-
> 
> "The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists.  They're too damned greedy!"
> 
> Now, there was a buildup of the middle class that started with Teddy Roosevelt and continued to grow under Woodrow Wilson.
> 
> But what really was the game changer leading up to the 1920's was that after WWI, the US went from being an importer to an exporter of manufactured goods.  Part of that because we ramped up manufacturing to meet needs for World War I (first supplying the allies and then ourselves) and partially because the Russian Revolution ended Russia's position as the top grain exporter.
> 
> (Again, your boy the Tsar exported Russia's wheat to Europe while Russian Peasents starved.... and you wonder why the Commies shot his ass.)
Click to expand...


See Hoover was  a proto-FDR I think you're finally understanding why we reject Hoover and embrace Coolodge


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of American history.  Calvin Coolidge was actually a remarkable President...one of my favorites as a matter of fact.  The best way to describe him would be as the "anti-Obama".  You should read up on the man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he start reading history now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. He was do-nothing tool of industrialists who blanchely sat by while they turned our entire economy into a house of cards that collapsed...
> 
> But let's look at where Historians rate him.
> 
> Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Yup. Every one of them lists  him in the bottom half, either the lowest quartile or the second lowest quartile.
> 
> As opposed to FDR, who is consistantly rated in the top quarter of presidents. In fact, he's usually rated between 1-3.
> 
> (By the way, these same surveys rate Reagan anywhere from top to third quartile...so the whole, But that's just liberals talking doesn't fly.)
Click to expand...


LOL Idiot Reagan pulls us out of a democrat made Recession in under 4 years Were FDR prolonged a depression by 6 years.


----------



## bendog

Please, that's simply partisan.  There's nothing to show the entire depression was extended due to the new deal keynesian policies.  There is evidence that monopolies were tolerated if unions were alllowed to work within that market, and THAT restrained possible growth.  But, with the depression, we're talking worldwide deflation like we've never seen.  The countries that recovered first were totally nationalized economies.

That said, the possible OP of the thread is correct, and any actual evaluation of Reagan will not occur for another generation or so, and frankly I doubt Reagan would care one way or another.


----------



## thanatos144

bendog said:


> Please, that's simply partisan.  There's nothing to show the entire depression was extended due to the new deal keynesian policies.  There is evidence that monopolies were tolerated if unions were alllowed to work within that market, and THAT restrained possible growth.  But, with the depression, we're talking worldwide deflation like we've never seen.  The countries that recovered first were totally nationalized economies.
> 
> That said, the possible OP of the thread is correct, and any actual evaluation of Reagan will not occur for another generation or so, and frankly I doubt Reagan would care one way or another.



Only the word of those who crafted the new deal.... Facts are facts.


----------



## bendog

thanatos144 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, that's simply partisan.  There's nothing to show the entire depression was extended due to the new deal keynesian policies.  There is evidence that monopolies were tolerated if unions were alllowed to work within that market, and THAT restrained possible growth.  But, with the depression, we're talking worldwide deflation like we've never seen.  The countries that recovered first were totally nationalized economies.
> 
> That said, the possible OP of the thread is correct, and any actual evaluation of Reagan will not occur for another generation or so, and frankly I doubt Reagan would care one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the word of those who crafted the new deal.... Facts are facts.
Click to expand...


naw.  If you have any academic economic studies tending to show an alteration to the new deal would have somehow altered worldwide deflation, I'd be more than happy to try to understand them.  But, I haven't seen any.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I "love" when you folks that think communism is such a wonderful thing fall back on the claim that the communist nations that have failed weren't REALLY practicing true communism and therefore don't count!  That's SUCH a bullshit excuse!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, where do I ever say communism was "wonderful"?
> 
> Please link to the post.  I'll wait.
> 
> Saying, "Communism didn't do the things you blame it for" is not thinking it's wonderful.
> 
> But when Dealing with idiots like you and CrusaderRabbit who think that Herbert Hoover was a Stalinist, you really do have to set down some parameters.
> 
> Such as when POLES throw Russians (their historical oppressors) out of their country, it isn't because something called "Communism" failed.
> 
> For the record, Communism doesn't work because of something called Human Nature.
> 
> And Capitalism doesn't work for pretty much the same reason.
Click to expand...


Gee, Joe...you're actually right about something!  It might be a first for you in this string!!!  Communism *DOESN'T* work because of human nature!  BINGO!!!!!!!!!

Capitalism on the other hand *DOES* work because of human nature.

And if you knew the history of Poland you'd know that it had MANY "historical oppressors" of which Russia was just one.  Poland's problem is that it always between a rock and a hard place...sandwiched between major powers with no natural barriers to prevent invasion.  Poland was invaded by Russian several times but it was also repeatedly attacked by Germany in different guises, attacked by the Turks, attacked by Hungary, even attacked by Sweden.  The REASON that Poland was finally able to get out from under Soviet domination was that communism was failing in the USSR.  You can't keep others subjugated when your own country is falling apart and make no mistake about it...the Soviet Union was falling apart.


----------



## thanatos144

bendog said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, that's simply partisan.  There's nothing to show the entire depression was extended due to the new deal keynesian policies.  There is evidence that monopolies were tolerated if unions were alllowed to work within that market, and THAT restrained possible growth.  But, with the depression, we're talking worldwide deflation like we've never seen.  The countries that recovered first were totally nationalized economies.
> 
> That said, the possible OP of the thread is correct, and any actual evaluation of Reagan will not occur for another generation or so, and frankly I doubt Reagan would care one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the word of those who crafted the new deal.... Facts are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw.  If you have any academic economic studies tending to show an alteration to the new deal would have somehow altered worldwide deflation, I'd be more than happy to try to understand them.  But, I haven't seen any.
Click to expand...


Then you haven't looked have you? They all say that is prolonged the depression by at least 6 years.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Meathead said:


> Over 1200 posts and for what? Reagan's place as a great American leader is secure. No amount of butt hurt and whining is ever going to change that.
> 
> Get over it, that bird has flown. You need to start looking for excuses for Obama now. That would be more difficult than trying to effect even Reagan's legacy, and far more contemporary.



If these facts below about Reagan make you a great american leader,

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 
Supporter of Satanists & child murderers 


then I hate to think what your opinion of Hitler is.

you reaganuts trolls are the ones doing the whining.you call people names everytime people bring up his atrocities and whine and cry in defeat making up lies when you are countered with facts you all cant refute. Hate to break your heart but this IS the history section.

if you cant handle the truth that you have been brainwashed by the CIA controlled media that reagan was evil and corrupt,then leave,its that simple. those facts above is what Reagans TRUE legacy is,get over it and stop whining about the truth being posted resorting to lies when you are cornered with facts you cant refute.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, hun. I'm well aware of how FDR thought that only the government was capable of building anything. Why do you think the economy sucked so badly for 7 whole years?
> 
> 
> 
> Hun? What the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much listening to Glenn Beck damages the brain....
Click to expand...




Yep the reaganuts have been taken in by the likes of CIA controlled media mouthpieces full of propaganda such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh alright.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Central Planning? OMG!!! THe HORROR of it all!
> 
> Seriously, dude?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder what kind of crazy you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the depth of your ignorance, it may be a Laurentian Abyss, but it's clear you don't know anything about Hoover, Coolidge or FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, so according to you, not only are all the history books wrong, but apparently, so were the people who lived through that time period.
> 
> People who voted in FDR FOUR TIMES, but threw out Hoover at the first oppurtunity.
> 
> Coolidge.  Also really considered a moron.
Click to expand...


I love the hypocrisy of Crusader Retard in the fact that its clear HE doesnt know anything about the true facts of Reagan.

apparently Crusader Retard thinks all the people that reported back then in the 80's of actual LIVE NEWS BROADCASTS that I posted videos of at LEAST twice and got no comment from trolls like him,according to Crusader Retard,all those people reporting in the media the facts how Reagans policys betrayed the lower and middle class familys,all of them are all wrong and all the newspaper articles published back then are wrong as well  and HE and his INTERNET links,are correct.what a fucking idiot.


He would be laughed out of a debating hall in a minute with his logic he uses.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [quo
> 
> See Hoover was  a proto-FDR I think you're finally understanding why we reject Hoover and embrace Coolodge



Yeah, it was obvious to all but the most retarded plutocrat what Coolidge did wasn't working. 

It's why most historians rate Coolidge down towards the bottom.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Gee, Joe...you're actually right about something!  It might be a first for you in this string!!!  Communism *DOESN'T* work because of human nature!  BINGO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Capitalism on the other hand *DOES* work because of human nature.



No, it doesn't work because of human nature, because greed makes people stupid. 

In case you were asleep during the whole 2008 thing where EVERYONE was warning we were headed off the cliff, but so many people were making so much money. 

Until it crashed.  





Oldstyle said:


> [
> And if you knew the history of Poland you'd know that it had MANY "historical oppressors" of which Russia was just one.  Poland's problem is that it always between a rock and a hard place...sandwiched between major powers with no natural barriers to prevent invasion.  Poland was invaded by Russian several times but it was also repeatedly attacked by Germany in different guises, attacked by the Turks, attacked by Hungary, even attacked by Sweden.  The REASON that Poland was finally able to get out from under Soviet domination was that communism was failing in the USSR.  You can't keep others subjugated when your own country is falling apart and make no mistake about it...the Soviet Union was falling apart.



Which again- nothing to do with Communism. 

Your arguments are getting circular, guy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> See Hoover was  a proto-FDR I think you're finally understanding why we reject Hoover and embrace Coolodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was obvious to all but the most retarded plutocrat what Coolidge did wasn't working.
> 
> It's why most historians rate Coolidge down towards the bottom.
Click to expand...


Coolidge inherited an economy with 18% unemployment and brought it down to 4% in 2 years. By the end of Coolidge second term you could not find an unemployed person in America.

FDR oversaw the worst economy since the 7 Biblical Lean Years with unemployment averaging 20% over his first 2 terms.

Which one of these 2 President has a Great economic record?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [quo
> 
> *Coolidge inherited an economy with 18% unemployment and brought it down to 4% in 2 years.* By the end of Coolidge second term you could not find an unemployed person in America.
> 
> FDR oversaw the worst economy since the 7 Biblical Lean Years with unemployment averaging 20% over his first 2 terms.
> 
> Which one of these 2 President has a Great economic record?



No, he didn't.  Where are even getting this shit from?  

Also should point out that Coolidge inherited a crappy economy from.. Warren G. Harding- the guy who picked him as a running mate.  Harding fought the 1921 recession by actually instituting welfare programs and public works.  

Coolidge failed in that he didn't provide the kind of oversight that was needed to avoid what happened in 1929.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> *Coolidge inherited an economy with 18% unemployment and brought it down to 4% in 2 years.* By the end of Coolidge second term you could not find an unemployed person in America.
> 
> FDR oversaw the worst economy since the 7 Biblical Lean Years with unemployment averaging 20% over his first 2 terms.
> 
> Which one of these 2 President has a Great economic record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.  Where are even getting this shit from?
> 
> Also should point out that Coolidge inherited a crappy economy from.. Warren G. Harding- the guy who picked him as a running mate.  Harding fought the 1921 recession by actually instituting welfare programs and public works.
> 
> Coolidge failed in that he didn't provide the kind of oversight that was needed to avoid what happened in 1929.
Click to expand...


Coolidge was NOT chosen by Harding.  In those days, the VP was elected by the party.

There was a depression in 1920 that few know of.  Depression of 1920?21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coolidge allowed the economy to correct itself and did not interfere the way the two fools Hoover and FDR did later in the 1930s...which only prolonged the Great Depression causing tremendous suffering.  

The depression of 1920 was over in 1921 and the economy boomed for the rest of the decade.  The same thing could have happened with the Great Depression, had Hoover and FDR not interfered massively.  

One would think W and BO would learn from history, but no.  Too many fools become POTUS...and cause terrible damage.  When will Americans ever learn....big uncontrolled government always causes problems?


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Coolidge was NOT chosen by Harding.  In those days, the VP was elected by the party.
> 
> There was a depression in 1920 that few know of.  Depression of 1920?21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Coolidge allowed the economy to correct itself and did not interfere the way the two fools Hoover and FDR did later in the 1930s...which only prolonged the Great Depression causing tremendous suffering.
> 
> The depression of 1920 was over in 1921 and the economy boomed for the rest of the decade.  The same thing could have happened with the Great Depression, had Hoover and FDR not interfered massively.
> 
> One would think W and BO would learn from history, but no.  Too many fools become POTUS...and cause terrible damage.  When will Americans ever learn....big uncontrolled government always causes problems?



Guy, you are getting your history a bit mixed up here.  

The recession of 1920 (largely caused by the international chaos caused by World War I and the Spanish Flu Epidemic, which between them killed 30 million people worldwide) was actually very breif and over by 1921, and like every other recession was solved by a influx of government spending on infrastructure.  Harding really was of the progressive mold. 

Idiot Coolidge didn't become president until 1923 when Harding died.  And, yes, the US was in the catsbird seat because in the post-war order, everyone else was still rebuilding while the US was surging. 

Unfortunately, what he didn't do was provide proper oversight of the markets, which is what lead to the 1929 disaster, which was so bad, no one REMEMBERS 1920.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> *Coolidge inherited an economy with 18% unemployment and brought it down to 4% in 2 years.* By the end of Coolidge second term you could not find an unemployed person in America.
> 
> FDR oversaw the worst economy since the 7 Biblical Lean Years with unemployment averaging 20% over his first 2 terms.
> 
> Which one of these 2 President has a Great economic record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.  Where are even getting this shit from?
> 
> Also should point out that Coolidge inherited a crappy economy from.. Warren G. Harding- the guy who picked him as a running mate.  Harding fought the 1921 recession by actually instituting welfare programs and public works.
> 
> Coolidge failed in that he didn't provide the kind of oversight that was needed to avoid what happened in 1929.
Click to expand...


I consider Coolidge first term a continuation of what harding started so together they inherited a contracting post war economy and corrected it in record time


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> *Coolidge inherited an economy with 18% unemployment and brought it down to 4% in 2 years.* By the end of Coolidge second term you could not find an unemployed person in America.
> 
> FDR oversaw the worst economy since the 7 Biblical Lean Years with unemployment averaging 20% over his first 2 terms.
> 
> Which one of these 2 President has a Great economic record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.  Where are even getting this shit from?
> 
> Also should point out that Coolidge inherited a crappy economy from.. Warren G. Harding- the guy who picked him as a running mate.  Harding fought the 1921 recession by actually instituting welfare programs and public works.
> 
> Coolidge failed in that he didn't provide the kind of oversight that was needed to avoid what happened in 1929.
Click to expand...


Rounding up the  Fed governors was the only thing that would have prevented the crash


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> *Coolidge inherited an economy with 18% unemployment and brought it down to 4% in 2 years.* By the end of Coolidge second term you could not find an unemployed person in America.
> 
> FDR oversaw the worst economy since the 7 Biblical Lean Years with unemployment averaging 20% over his first 2 terms.
> 
> Which one of these 2 President has a Great economic record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.  Where are even getting this shit from?
> 
> Also should point out that Coolidge inherited a crappy economy from.. Warren G. Harding- the guy who picked him as a running mate.  Harding fought the 1921 recession by actually instituting welfare programs and public works.
> 
> Coolidge failed in that he didn't provide the kind of oversight that was needed to avoid what happened in 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider Coolidge first term a continuation of what harding started so together they inherited a contracting post war economy and corrected it in record time
Click to expand...


Except that wasn't true, either.  The contraction that occurred after WWI ended by 1921, before Harding really had a chance to institute any policies.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Coolidge was NOT chosen by Harding.  In those days, the VP was elected by the party.
> 
> There was a depression in 1920 that few know of.  Depression of 1920?21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Coolidge allowed the economy to correct itself and did not interfere the way the two fools Hoover and FDR did later in the 1930s...which only prolonged the Great Depression causing tremendous suffering.
> 
> The depression of 1920 was over in 1921 and the economy boomed for the rest of the decade.  The same thing could have happened with the Great Depression, had Hoover and FDR not interfered massively.
> 
> One would think W and BO would learn from history, but no.  Too many fools become POTUS...and cause terrible damage.  When will Americans ever learn....big uncontrolled government always causes problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are getting your history a bit mixed up here.
> 
> The recession of 1920 (largely caused by the international chaos caused by World War I and the Spanish Flu Epidemic, which between them killed 30 million people worldwide) was actually very breif and over by 1921, and like every other recession was solved by a influx of government spending on infrastructure.  Harding really was of the progressive mold.
> 
> Idiot Coolidge didn't become president until 1923 when Harding died.  And, yes, the US was in the catsbird seat because in the post-war order, everyone else was still rebuilding while the US was surging.
> 
> Unfortunately, what he didn't do was provide proper oversight of the markets, which is what lead to the 1929 disaster, which was so bad, no one REMEMBERS 1920.
Click to expand...


Nothing you stated disputes what I stated.  It is well known that Coolidge did not interfere in the economy.  Yes, by the time he assumed the office of POTUS the depression of 1920 was over.  But, had he been an interventionist, as you seem to think he and Harding should have been (ignoring the interventionist failures of Hoover, FDR, W, Big Ears, etc...) things would have been much worse.  

The Great Depression was the result of constant interventions by Hoover and FDR.  Had they not intervened, it might have been over in 1930.

Coolidge was not an idiot.  He was one of the best presidents we ever had.  He abided by the Constitution...something most presidents fail to do...and apparently you much prefer. The idiots were Hoover and FDR...much like the idiots W and Big Ears.


----------



## bendog

thanatos144 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the word of those who crafted the new deal.... Facts are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naw.  If you have any academic economic studies tending to show an alteration to the new deal would have somehow altered worldwide deflation, I'd be more than happy to try to understand them.  But, I haven't seen any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you haven't looked have you? They all say that is prolonged the depression by at least 6 years.
Click to expand...


No they don't say that.  Rather, within monopoly controlled markets, growth was restrained.  However, nothing shows the worldwide depression was affected, and the cause was a worldwide lack of demand brought on by deflation, which was largely caused by austerity by bankers.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> *Coolidge inherited an economy with 18% unemployment and brought it down to 4% in 2 years.* By the end of Coolidge second term you could not find an unemployed person in America.
> 
> FDR oversaw the worst economy since the 7 Biblical Lean Years with unemployment averaging 20% over his first 2 terms.
> 
> Which one of these 2 President has a Great economic record?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.  Where are even getting this shit from?
> 
> Also should point out that Coolidge inherited a crappy economy from.. Warren G. Harding- the guy who picked him as a running mate.  Harding fought the 1921 recession by actually instituting welfare programs and public works.
> 
> Coolidge failed in that he didn't provide the kind of oversight that was needed to avoid what happened in 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coolidge was NOT chosen by Harding.  In those days, the VP was elected by the party.
> 
> There was a depression in 1920 that few know of.  Depression of 1920?21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Coolidge allowed the economy to correct itself and did not interfere the way the two fools Hoover and FDR did later in the 1930s...which only prolonged the Great Depression causing tremendous suffering.
> 
> The depression of 1920 was over in 1921 and the economy boomed for the rest of the decade.  The same thing could have happened with the Great Depression, had Hoover and FDR not interfered massively.
> 
> One would think W and BO would learn from history, but no.  Too many fools become POTUS...and cause terrible damage.  When will Americans ever learn....big uncontrolled government always causes problems?
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Coolidge was NOT chosen by Harding.  In those days, the VP was elected by the party.
> 
> There was a depression in 1920 that few know of.  Depression of 1920?21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Coolidge allowed the economy to correct itself and did not interfere the way the two fools Hoover and FDR did later in the 1930s...which only prolonged the Great Depression causing tremendous suffering.
> 
> The depression of 1920 was over in 1921 and the economy boomed for the rest of the decade.  The same thing could have happened with the Great Depression, had Hoover and FDR not interfered massively.
> 
> One would think W and BO would learn from history, but no.  Too many fools become POTUS...and cause terrible damage.  When will Americans ever learn....big uncontrolled government always causes problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are getting your history a bit mixed up here.
> 
> The recession of 1920 (largely caused by the international chaos caused by World War I and the Spanish Flu Epidemic, which between them killed 30 million people worldwide) was actually very breif and over by 1921, and like every other recession was solved by a influx of government spending on infrastructure.  Harding really was of the progressive mold.
> 
> Idiot Coolidge didn't become president until 1923 when Harding died.  And, yes, the US was in the catsbird seat because in the post-war order, everyone else was still rebuilding while the US was surging.
> 
> Unfortunately, what he didn't do was provide proper oversight of the markets, which is what lead to the 1929 disaster, which was so bad, no one REMEMBERS 1920.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing you stated disputes what I stated.  It is well known that Coolidge did not interfere in the economy.  Yes, by the time he assumed the office of POTUS the depression of 1920 was over.  But, had he been an interventionist, as you seem to think he and Harding should have been (ignoring the interventionist failures of Hoover, FDR, W, Big Ears, etc...) things would have been much worse.
> 
> The Great Depression was the result of constant interventions by Hoover and FDR.  Had they not intervened, it might have been over in 1930.
> 
> Coolidge was not an idiot.  He was one of the best presidents we ever had.  He abided by the Constitution...something most presidents fail to do...and apparently you much prefer. The idiots were Hoover and FDR...much like the idiots W and Big Ears.
Click to expand...


amen to that.

Thats why I and another poster were saying earlier that you got to go back several decades back to Calvin Coolidge to find our last GREAT republican president we had  that served in office.

Thats why you dont see monuments everywhere of calvin coolidge like you do of FDR or ever hear his name mentioned along with other great presidents like washington,Jefferson,and Lincoln and why you do with FDR and reagan because the establishment brainwashed american society that presidents like FDR and reagan were great men and great presidents, never mentioning their actual atrocities they commited at the time.


----------



## bendog

9/11 inside job said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are getting your history a bit mixed up here.
> 
> The recession of 1920 (largely caused by the international chaos caused by World War I and the Spanish Flu Epidemic, which between them killed 30 million people worldwide) was actually very breif and over by 1921, and like every other recession was solved by a influx of government spending on infrastructure.  Harding really was of the progressive mold.
> 
> Idiot Coolidge didn't become president until 1923 when Harding died.  And, yes, the US was in the catsbird seat because in the post-war order, everyone else was still rebuilding while the US was surging.
> 
> Unfortunately, what he didn't do was provide proper oversight of the markets, which is what lead to the 1929 disaster, which was so bad, no one REMEMBERS 1920.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you stated disputes what I stated.  It is well known that Coolidge did not interfere in the economy.  Yes, by the time he assumed the office of POTUS the depression of 1920 was over.  But, had he been an interventionist, as you seem to think he and Harding should have been (ignoring the interventionist failures of Hoover, FDR, W, Big Ears, etc...) things would have been much worse.
> 
> The Great Depression was the result of constant interventions by Hoover and FDR.  Had they not intervened, it might have been over in 1930.
> 
> Coolidge was not an idiot.  He was one of the best presidents we ever had.  He abided by the Constitution...something most presidents fail to do...and apparently you much prefer. The idiots were Hoover and FDR...much like the idiots W and Big Ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> amen to that.
> 
> Thats why I and another poster were saying earlier that you got to go back several decades back to Calvin Coolidge to find our last GREAT republican president we had  that served in office.
> 
> Thats why you dont see monuments everywhere of calvin coolidge like you do of FDR or ever hear his name mentioned along with other great presidents like washington,Jefferson,and Lincoln and why you do with FDR and reagan because the establishment brainwashed american society that presidents like FDR and reagan were great men and great presidents, never mentioning their actual atrocities they commited at the time.
Click to expand...


Coolidege gets short shrift because his successor, Hoover, followed Coollidge's predecssor's, Harding's, response to the economic downturn, and it turned disaster into catastrophe because the causes of both downturns were very different.  Of course europe didn't help.


----------



## Toro

Coolidge benefitted from a bubble, like Clinton did, one that was fueled by an inflow of gold into the country. 

I believe Silent Cal was sworn in at 2 in the morning at his cabin in Vermont by a JP after learning that Harding died.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toro said:


> Coolidge benefitted from a bubble, like Clinton did, one that was fueled by an inflow of gold into the country.
> 
> I believe Silent Cal was sworn in at 2 in the morning at his cabin in Vermont by a JP after learning that Harding died.



He also decided against running for President in 28 because he believed his abbreviated first term counted as 2 terms served.

How different it might have been had he ran and won


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge benefitted from a bubble, like Clinton did, one that was fueled by an inflow of gold into the country.
> 
> I believe Silent Cal was sworn in at 2 in the morning at his cabin in Vermont by a JP after learning that Harding died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also decided against running for President in 28 because he believed his abbreviated first term counted as 2 terms served.
> 
> How different it might have been had he ran and won
Click to expand...


Yeah, he could totally fucked it up and the Communist Party would have won in 1932.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge benefitted from a bubble, like Clinton did, one that was fueled by an inflow of gold into the country.
> 
> I believe Silent Cal was sworn in at 2 in the morning at his cabin in Vermont by a JP after learning that Harding died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also decided against running for President in 28 because he believed his abbreviated first term counted as 2 terms served.
> 
> How different it might have been had he ran and won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, he could totally fucked it up and the Communist Party would have won in 1932.
Click to expand...


Leave your wet dream out of it


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge benefitted from a bubble, like Clinton did, one that was fueled by an inflow of gold into the country.
> 
> I believe Silent Cal was sworn in at 2 in the morning at his cabin in Vermont by a JP after learning that Harding died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also decided against running for President in 28 because he believed his abbreviated first term counted as 2 terms served.
> 
> How different it might have been had he ran and won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, he could totally fucked it up and the Communist Party would have won in 1932.
Click to expand...


In any event more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also decided against running for President in 28 because he believed his abbreviated first term counted as 2 terms served.
> 
> How different it might have been had he ran and won
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he could totally fucked it up and the Communist Party would have won in 1932.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In any event more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR
Click to expand...


Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.  

(Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)


----------



## Oldstyle

Toro said:


> Coolidge benefitted from a bubble, like Clinton did, one that was fueled by an inflow of gold into the country.
> 
> I believe Silent Cal was sworn in at 2 in the morning at his cabin in Vermont by a JP after learning that Harding died.



Silent Cal was actually sworn in by his father...the only US President with that distinction.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he could totally fucked it up and the Communist Party would have won in 1932.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any event more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.
> 
> (Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)
Click to expand...


Did you miss the USSR admitting they had more spies in the FDR White House than McCarthy tried to warn us about?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any event more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.
> 
> (Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the USSR admitting they had more spies in the FDR White House than McCarthy tried to warn us about?
Click to expand...


Yeah, that sounds like a guy who insists he has a 12 inch dick on the internet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.
> 
> (Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the USSR admitting they had more spies in the FDR White House than McCarthy tried to warn us about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that sounds like a guy who insists he has a 12 inch dick on the internet.
Click to expand...


It sounds more like when facts are at odds with your low-information world view you resort to insults


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.
> 
> (Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the USSR admitting they had more spies in the FDR White House than McCarthy tried to warn us about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that sounds like a guy who insists he has a 12 inch dick on the internet.
Click to expand...

I like the one about the guy who insists he has a degree in history!


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he could totally fucked it up and the Communist Party would have won in 1932.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any event more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.
> 
> (Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)
Click to expand...


You claim to know history DUDE, but this post proves you do not.  

Joe McCarthy was RIGHT.  In fact, he was much too limited in his exposure of commie traitors in our government during the 30s, 40s, and 50s.  Whitaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley exposed numerous commies, which FDR and Truman willfully ignored.  The two POTUS fools even condemned the truth tellers, while doing all they could to protect the traitorous commies.  The Venona Papers and FBI wire taps confirmed McCarthy, Chambers, and Bentley were right.

You should educate yourself on the issue before posting propaganda you learned in the government schools.  You might start with books by Evans Stanton and Diana West.  

I am betting you still believe Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs were innocent...but then, you would not be alone.  Many Americans have chosen to accept the lies feed to them by the state.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the USSR admitting they had more spies in the FDR White House than McCarthy tried to warn us about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that sounds like a guy who insists he has a 12 inch dick on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds more like when facts are at odds with your low-information world view you resort to insults
Click to expand...


No, because there's no proof of that, other than crazy Bircher crap.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> You claim to know history DUDE, but this post proves you do not.
> 
> Joe McCarthy was RIGHT.  In fact, he was much too limited in his exposure of commie traitors in our government during the 30s, 40s, and 50s.  Whitaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley exposed numerous commies, which FDR and Truman willfully ignored.  The two POTUS fools even condemned the truth tellers, while doing all they could to protect the traitorous commies.  The Venona Papers and FBI wire taps confirmed McCarthy, Chambers, and Bentley were right.
> 
> You should educate yourself on the issue before posting propaganda you learned in the government schools.  You might start with books by Evans Stanton and Diana West.
> 
> I am betting you still believe Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs were innocent...but then, you would not be alone.  Many Americans have chosen to accept the lies feed to them by the state.



I just don't think we should have executed people because we don't like their politics. 

Something you should probably appreciate, considering your kind of political douchebaggery is going to very soon be in the minority.  

The Red Scare was exactly what it was... we all crapped ourselves when a former ally turned into a rival.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that sounds like a guy who insists he has a 12 inch dick on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds more like when facts are at odds with your low-information world view you resort to insults
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because there's no proof of that, other than crazy Bircher crap.
Click to expand...


The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds more like when facts are at odds with your low-information world view you resort to insults
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because there's no proof of that, other than crazy Bircher crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?
Click to expand...


No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it. 

That's not the same thing.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You claim to know history DUDE, but this post proves you do not.
> 
> Joe McCarthy was RIGHT.  In fact, he was much too limited in his exposure of commie traitors in our government during the 30s, 40s, and 50s.  Whitaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley exposed numerous commies, which FDR and Truman willfully ignored.  The two POTUS fools even condemned the truth tellers, while doing all they could to protect the traitorous commies.  The Venona Papers and FBI wire taps confirmed McCarthy, Chambers, and Bentley were right.
> 
> You should educate yourself on the issue before posting propaganda you learned in the government schools.  You might start with books by Evans Stanton and Diana West.
> 
> I am betting you still believe Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs were innocent...but then, you would not be alone.  Many Americans have chosen to accept the lies feed to them by the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think we should have executed people because we don't like their politics.
> 
> Something you should probably appreciate, considering your kind of political douchebaggery is going to very soon be in the minority.
> 
> The Red Scare was exactly what it was... we all crapped ourselves when a former ally turned into a rival.
Click to expand...


Again you prove you know little on this subject.  

The infiltration of our government by American commie traitors is well documented.  If you want to know the truth, which it would appear you do not, it is readily available to you.

And the rest of your post is complete foolishness.  The Soviets were our allies...so we should just ignore their heinous actions, history, and tyrannical ideology...and their spying. 

Has it ever occurred to you that the Soviets should NEVER have been our allies?

And who said anything about the death penalty?  You raise straw-man arguments whenever you are proven incorrect. 

Was Hiss and the Rosenbergs Soviet spies or not?


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because there's no proof of that, other than crazy Bircher crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
Click to expand...


Your post is utter and complete nonsense.  Please stop.  

You do not know the truth about this subject.

You might want to stick to the history of the Kardashians and Jay-Z/Beyonce Knowles Carters.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Again you prove you know little on this subject.
> 
> The infiltration of our government by American commie traitors is well documented.  If you want to know the truth, which it would appear you do not, it is readily available to you.
> 
> And the rest of your post is complete foolishness.  *The Soviets were our allies...so we should just ignore their heinous actions, history, and tyrannical ideology...and their spying.*



Actually, we should do exactly that.  The USSR did more to win WWII than we did. We spied on them, they spied on us.  I just can't get awfully upset about it.  




> Has it ever occurred to you that the Soviets should NEVER have been our allies?



No, actually, that never would have occurred to me.  Hitler was determined to take over the world and exterminate everyone who wasn't an Aryan, so really, probably a good thing that he didn't.  Sadly, the only way to beat him was to have a system that was equally ruthless. 

This is the thing that you don't get.  The USSR really won WWII.  We just held their coats for them. 




> And who said anything about the death penalty?  You raise straw-man arguments whenever you are proven incorrect.
> 
> Was Hiss and the Rosenbergs Soviet spies or not?



Hiss, probably not.  The Rosenbergs- Julius was, Ethel wasn't, but we murdered her anyway. 

But it's okay if WE murder people for not liking their politics. It's just bad when THEY do it.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is utter and complete nonsense.  Please stop.
> 
> You do not know the truth about this subject.
> 
> You might want to stick to the history of the Kardashians and Jay-Z/Beyonce Knowles Carters.
Click to expand...


Well, it does fall into the I don't give a fuck region, but there's this... 

Alger Hiss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Alger Hiss petitioned General Dmitry Antonovich Volkogonov, who had become President Yeltsin's military advisor and the overseer of all the Soviet intelligence archives, to request the release of any Soviet files on the Hiss case. Both former President Nixon and the director of his presidential library, John H. Taylor, wrote similar letters, though their full contents are not yet publicly available.

Russian archivists responded by reviewing their files, and in late 1992 reported back that they had found no evidence Hiss ever engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union nor that he was a member of the Communist Party. However, Volkogonov subsequently stated he spent only two days on the search and had mainly relied on the word of KGB archivists. "What I saw gave me no basis to claim a full clarification", he said. Referring to Hiss's lawyer, he added, "John Lowenthal pushed me to say things of which I was not fully convinced."[74] General-Lieutenant Vitaly Pavlov, who ran Soviet intelligence work in North America in the late 1930s and early 1940s for the NKVD, provided some corroboration of the initial report in his memoirs, stating that Hiss never worked for the USSR as one of his agents.[75] In 2003, retired Russian intelligence official General Julius Kobyakov disclosed that it was he who had actually searched the files for Volkogonov. Kobyakov stated:


After careful study of every reference to Mr. A. Hiss in the SVR(KGB-NKVD)archives, and querying sister services, I prepared an answer to Mr. J. Lowenthal that in essence stated that Mr. A. Hiss had never had any relationship with the SVR or its predecessors.[75]

In 2007, Svetlana Chervonnaya, a Russian researcher who had been studying Soviet archives since the early 1990s, stated that Hiss' name was absent from Soviet archives.[76*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because there's no proof of that, other than crazy Bircher crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
Click to expand...


That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.

At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.

Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You claim to know history DUDE, but this post proves you do not.
> 
> Joe McCarthy was RIGHT.  In fact, he was much too limited in his exposure of commie traitors in our government during the 30s, 40s, and 50s.  Whitaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley exposed numerous commies, which FDR and Truman willfully ignored.  The two POTUS fools even condemned the truth tellers, while doing all they could to protect the traitorous commies.  The Venona Papers and FBI wire taps confirmed McCarthy, Chambers, and Bentley were right.
> 
> You should educate yourself on the issue before posting propaganda you learned in the government schools.  You might start with books by Evans Stanton and Diana West.
> 
> I am betting you still believe Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs were innocent...but then, you would not be alone.  Many Americans have chosen to accept the lies feed to them by the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think we should have executed people because we don't like their politics.
> 
> Something you should probably appreciate, considering your kind of political douchebaggery is going to very soon be in the minority.
> 
> The Red Scare was exactly what it was... we all crapped ourselves when a former ally turned into a rival.
Click to expand...


The facts say otherwise. The USSR tried to start WWIII with the Berlin Blockade and soon thereafter the ChiComs and NoKo started the Korean War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade (1948)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War (1950)

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6456 (Feb 1950)

Fact =/= JoeB's worldview


----------



## Dot Com

At least we've established that Coolidge was better then The Gipper


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.
> 
> At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.
> 
> Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross
Click to expand...


names?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.
> 
> At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.
> 
> Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> names?
Click to expand...


Check my "blacklisted" thread


----------



## gipper

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.
> 
> At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.
> 
> Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check my "blacklisted" thread
Click to expand...


It is amazing how little most Americans know about the many American traitor commies who infested the administrations of FDR and Truman.  Even to this day some still believe such utter foolishness as Alger Hiss' innocence.  

What they know was told to them by the state, which always lies.  It is very unfortunate that some Americans chose to believe lies and refuse to accept the truth.  Tyrants love such people.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.
> 
> At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.
> 
> Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross
Click to expand...


We have documentary evidence that Geo. Washington was president. 

What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.  

Also, after the Cold War they asked the Russians, who said, "NOpe, not one of ours!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.
> 
> At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.
> 
> Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have documentary evidence that Geo. Washington was president.
> 
> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> Also, after the Cold War they asked the Russians, who said, "NOpe, not one of ours!"
Click to expand...


So we're relying on the Soviets to confirm they had spies?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.
> 
> At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.
> 
> Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have documentary evidence that Geo. Washington was president.
> 
> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> Also, after the Cold War they asked the Russians, who said, "NOpe, not one of ours!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're relying on the Soviets to confirm they had spies?
Click to expand...


I thought you were?  You were the one who claimed that there were more people working for Stalin than FDR in the FDR White HOuse. 

It would be nice if you could prove even the most famous one actually was.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have documentary evidence that Geo. Washington was president.
> 
> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> Also, after the Cold War they asked the Russians, who said, "NOpe, not one of ours!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we're relying on the Soviets to confirm they had spies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were?  You were the one who claimed that there were more people working for Stalin than FDR in the FDR White HOuse.
> 
> It would be nice if you could prove even the most famous one actually was.
Click to expand...


You dismissed venona as fictional  (probably because you're totally ignorant about it) and now you're claiming that we can indeed rely on Soviet sources. Are you schizophrenic


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we're relying on the Soviets to confirm they had spies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were?  You were the one who claimed that there were more people working for Stalin than FDR in the FDR White HOuse.
> 
> It would be nice if you could prove even the most famous one actually was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dismissed venona as fictional  (probably because you're totally ignorant about it) and now you're claiming that we can indeed rely on Soviet sources. Are you schizophrenic
Click to expand...


No, I just pointed out that Venona was horseshit, a lot of guys at the CIA trying to not look as inept as they were. 

Frankly, the evidence against Hiss is pretty thin, but the Right wing will claim he was a communist to this very day.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any event more people in the FDR White House reported to Stalin than to FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.
> 
> (Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should educate yourself on the issue before posting propaganda you learned in the government schools.  You might start with books by Evans Stanton and Diana West.
> 
> advise you should ALSO be giving to trolls CRUSADER RETARD,TROLLSTYLE and the one with the appropriate user name MEATHEAD since thats exactly what he is.
> 
> you really should follow their posts,you would see how they evade facts on the corruption of reagan running off with their tail between their legs when they are cornered,and then change the subject.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets admitted they had spies in the FDR White House.  Were you asleep next to Rip Van Winkle the last 2 decades?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they CLAIMED they did after everyone involved was already dead and couldn't deny it.
> 
> That's not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is utter and complete nonsense.  Please stop.
> 
> You do not know the truth about this subject.
> 
> again thats the kind of posts that you should be posting to the reaganut worshippers here.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> At least we've established that Coolidge was better then The Gipper





amen to that.

simple to prove actually since Coolidge was none of these things below and didnt do any of these things that reagan did either.

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 
Supporter of Satanists & child murderers 

Like I said before,if those things make Reagan a great leader,then I hate to even imagine what the reaganut worshippers opinion of Hilter and Stalin is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, McCarthy, there's a commie hiding under your bed.
> 
> (Did you miss the whole 1950's when we realized your sort were nuts?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should educate yourself on the issue before posting propaganda you learned in the government schools.  You might start with books by Evans Stanton and Diana West.
> 
> advise you should ALSO be giving to trolls CRUSADER RETARD,TROLLSTYLE and the one with the appropriate user name MEATHEAD since thats exactly what he is.
> 
> you really should follow their posts,you would see how they evade facts on the corruption of reagan running off with their tail between their legs when they are cornered,and then change the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...-of-senator-joe-mccarthy-m-stanton-evans.html
> 
> Mark Rochelle chimed in on this thread
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.



Someone is a 12 year old


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## hunarcy

JoeB131 said:


> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alger Hiss lost a civil suit for defamation over Chamber's claim he was a spy, AND lost 2 perjury trials over the question as to whether he was a spy.  The only reason he wasn't convicted of spying is that the statute of limitations had expired for bringing that charge.
> 
> And, as for your claim that the Soviets said Hiss wasn't one of theirs, Volkogonov left "wiggle room".  "Later, the general admitted that the search had not been thorough, that it could not be complete because files had been destroyed, and that he could not speak for other intelligence agencies, just the KGB. He did not offer to check again, and the old Soviet warhorse was quoted as saying Hisss attorney had pressured him into giving his client the clearance."
> 
> AIM Report: Media Won?t Give Up on Red Spy Alger Hiss ? July B
> 
> So, obviously the issue is still not settled.
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

hunarcy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alger Hiss lost a civil suit for defamation over Chamber's claim he was a spy, AND lost 2 perjury trials over the question as to whether he was a spy.  The only reason he wasn't convicted of spying is that the statute of limitations had expired for bringing that charge.
> 
> And, as for your claim that the Soviets said Hiss wasn't one of theirs, Volkogonov left "wiggle room".  "Later, the general admitted that the search had not been thorough, that it could not be complete because files had been destroyed, and that he could not speak for other intelligence agencies, just the KGB. He did not offer to check again, and the old Soviet warhorse was quoted as saying Hisss attorney had pressured him into giving his client the clearance."
> 
> AIM Report: Media Won?t Give Up on Red Spy Alger Hiss ? July B
> 
> So, obviously the issue is still not settled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as JoeB is concerned Hiss is a hero
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dot Com

ENOUGH w/ the gipper fluffing!!!  So he gave a mediocre speech & ran the debt up & the other empire got bankrupted first? BFD  Their probs started before Ronnie got into office. He was a "Johnny come lately" to the game


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> ENOUGH w/ the gipper fluffing!!!  So he gave a mediocre speech & ran the debt up & the other empire got bankrupted first? BFD  Their probs started before Ronnie got into office. He was a "Johnny come lately" to the game



Awww is the socialist feeling bad because all his heroes are evil murderers that can't run a country?


----------



## JoeB131

hunarcy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alger Hiss lost a civil suit for defamation over Chamber's claim he was a spy, AND lost 2 perjury trials over the question as to whether he was a spy.  The only reason he wasn't convicted of spying is that the statute of limitations had expired for bringing that charge.
> 
> And, as for your claim that the Soviets said Hiss wasn't one of theirs, Volkogonov left "wiggle room".  "Later, the general admitted that the search had not been thorough, that it could not be complete because files had been destroyed, and that he could not speak for other intelligence agencies, just the KGB. He did not offer to check again, and the old Soviet warhorse was quoted as saying Hisss attorney had pressured him into giving his client the clearance."
> 
> AIM Report: Media Won?t Give Up on Red Spy Alger Hiss ? July B
> 
> So, obviously the issue is still not settled.
Click to expand...


It is to me.  McCarthyism ruined hundreds of lives because we all shat ourselves for a decade.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alger Hiss lost a civil suit for defamation over Chamber's claim he was a spy, AND lost 2 perjury trials over the question as to whether he was a spy.  The only reason he wasn't convicted of spying is that the statute of limitations had expired for bringing that charge.
> 
> And, as for your claim that the Soviets said Hiss wasn't one of theirs, Volkogonov left "wiggle room".  "Later, the general admitted that the search had not been thorough, that it could not be complete because files had been destroyed, and that he could not speak for other intelligence agencies, just the KGB. He did not offer to check again, and the old Soviet warhorse was quoted as saying Hisss attorney had pressured him into giving his client the clearance."
> 
> AIM Report: Media Won?t Give Up on Red Spy Alger Hiss ? July B
> 
> So, obviously the issue is still not settled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is to me.  McCarthyism ruined hundreds of lives because we all shat ourselves for a decade.
Click to expand...


Who's lives were ruined?  

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

Can't help if you were asleep during history class and they explained to you why McCarthyism was a bad thing.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Can't help if you were asleep during history class and they explained to you why McCarthyism was a bad thing.



Is this the same history that already proved you don't know s*** about history? Because MacArthur  didn't ruin anybody's life but he was proven completly correct 

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help if you were asleep during history class and they explained to you why McCarthyism was a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the same history that already proved you don't know s*** about history? Because my cross you didn't ruin anybody's life but he was proven completly correct
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Are you some kind of retard?  If you can't make a coherent argument with your ObamaPhone, please don't waste my time.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help if you were asleep during history class and they explained to you why McCarthyism was a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the same history that already proved you don't know s*** about history? Because my cross you didn't ruin anybody's life but he was proven completly correct
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of retard?  If you can't make a coherent argument with your ObamaPhone, please don't waste my time.
Click to expand...


Sorry unlike you I pay for the things I use

tapatalk post


----------



## Toro

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying George Washington claimed to be President.
> 
> At the time, the FBI had Intel on the spies that they gave to McCarthy, some of the spies admitted they were spying for the USSR, and then Moscow released the backup on their spy program.
> 
> Again, facts and your worldview are parallel lines that never cross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check my "blacklisted" thread
Click to expand...


Is that a thread about the 6 million Mormons with whom Joe will not do business because they're Mormons?


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> names?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check my "blacklisted" thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a thread about the 6 million Mormons with whom Joe will not do business because they're Mormons?
Click to expand...


If only you showed as much concern with Warrior102's racism and homophobia.


----------



## editec

I note that nobody is still attempting to defend the GOP's mythology about Reagan.

This is a good thing.

I presume it means those of you who had been mislead about Reagan being a conservative, checked the history to discover that he was the exact OPPOSITE.



Good for ya'll


----------



## Meathead

editec said:


> I note that nobody is still attempting to defend the GOP's mythology about Reagan.
> 
> This is a good thing.
> 
> I presume it means those of you who had been mislead about Reagan being a conservative, checked the history to discover that he was the exact OPPOSITE.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for ya'll


Reagan was a conservative and a very successful one. Thus the liberal revisionism of history and the endless whining.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that nobody is still attempting to defend the GOP's mythology about Reagan.
> 
> This is a good thing.
> 
> I presume it means those of you who had been mislead about Reagan being a conservative, checked the history to discover that he was the exact OPPOSITE.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for ya'll
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was a conservative and a very successful one. Thus the liberal revisionism of history and the endless whining.
Click to expand...


Yes, most of us m iss the nice middle class this senile old fuck destroyed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

editec said:


> I note that nobody is still attempting to defend the GOP's mythology about Reagan.
> 
> This is a good thing.
> 
> I presume it means those of you who had been mislead about Reagan being a conservative, checked the history to discover that he was the exact OPPOSITE.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for ya'll



Whats remarkable is that so many bought into the myth to begin with, and for so long.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we don't have is any evidence ever that Alger Hiss was a spy.  He was never convicted of spying.  And most of the so-called evidence turned out to be bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alger Hiss lost a civil suit for defamation over Chamber's claim he was a spy, AND lost 2 perjury trials over the question as to whether he was a spy.  The only reason he wasn't convicted of spying is that the statute of limitations had expired for bringing that charge.
> 
> And, as for your claim that the Soviets said Hiss wasn't one of theirs, Volkogonov left "wiggle room".  "Later, the general admitted that the search had not been thorough, that it could not be complete because files had been destroyed, and that he could not speak for other intelligence agencies, just the KGB. He did not offer to check again, and the old Soviet warhorse was quoted as saying Hisss attorney had pressured him into giving his client the clearance."
> 
> AIM Report: Media Won?t Give Up on Red Spy Alger Hiss ? July B
> 
> So, obviously the issue is still not settled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is to me.  McCarthyism ruined hundreds of lives because we all shat ourselves for a decade.
Click to expand...


First, Name one life ruined by McCarthy

Second, Your Soviet pals tried to start WWIII with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, McCarthy gave his Wheeling WV Speech in Feb 1950 and then your ChiCom Pals started the Korean War 4 months later


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> First, Name one life ruined by McCarthy
> 
> Secind, Your Soviet pals tried to start WWIII with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, McCarthy gave his Wheeling WV Speech in Feb 1950 and then your ChiCom Pals started the Korean War 4 months later



Not seeing how an incident where neither side used violence was going to start WWIII.  

The Soviets told us to get out of Berlin because they were the ones who took it... 

We could talk about the Hollywood blacklist, where dozens of people were denied work because of false accusations they were communists or just because they wouldn't testify in front of their co-workers.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that nobody is still attempting to defend the GOP's mythology about Reagan.
> 
> This is a good thing.
> 
> I presume it means those of you who had been mislead about Reagan being a conservative, checked the history to discover that he was the exact OPPOSITE.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for ya'll
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was a conservative and a very successful one. Thus the liberal revisionism of history and the endless whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most of us m iss the nice middle class this senile old fuck destroyed.
Click to expand...

You destroyed yourself Joe. Stop trying to pawn it off. It reeks of desperation.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was a conservative and a very successful one. Thus the liberal revisionism of history and the endless whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most of us m iss the nice middle class this senile old fuck destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You destroyed yourself Joe. Stop trying to pawn it off. It reeks of desperation.
Click to expand...


I'm doing okay... I'm talking about everyone else, dumbass.  

We had it pretty good before dumbfuck bedtime for Bonzo got there.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most of us m iss the nice middle class this senile old fuck destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> You destroyed yourself Joe. Stop trying to pawn it off. It reeks of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm doing okay... I'm talking about everyone else, dumbass.
> 
> We had it pretty good before dumbfuck bedtime for Bonzo got there.
Click to expand...


Carter was having it "pretty good"?  Really...  I mean REALLY?


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most of us m iss the nice middle class this senile old fuck destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> You destroyed yourself Joe. Stop trying to pawn it off. It reeks of desperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm doing okay... I'm talking about everyone else, dumbass.
> 
> We had it pretty good before dumbfuck bedtime for Bonzo got there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right Joe. You've got failure, bitterness and envy written all over you. Others succeeded where you failed and you've channeled all you frustrations on the rich and successful, like Reagan. That much is obvious.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

thanatos144 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ENOUGH w/ the gipper fluffing!!!  So he gave a mediocre speech & ran the debt up & the other empire got bankrupted first? BFD  Their probs started before Ronnie got into office. He was a "Johnny come lately" to the game
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awww is the socialist feeling bad because all his heroes are evil murderers that can't run a country?
Click to expand...


what an Ironic post since the reaganut worshippers hero is reagan, an evil murderer who couldnt run the country.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

EDITED OUT.double post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> I note that nobody is still attempting to defend the GOP's mythology about Reagan.
> 
> This is a good thing.
> 
> I presume it means those of you who had been mislead about Reagan being a conservative, checked the history to discover that he was the exact OPPOSITE.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for ya'll





It was these facts here below about him that made them wise up and stop defending him.

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 
Supporter of Satanists & child murderers 



 so now that they see he has been exposed,thats why they have changed the subject and are talking about something else now.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You destroyed yourself Joe. Stop trying to pawn it off. It reeks of desperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm doing okay... I'm talking about everyone else, dumbass.
> 
> We had it pretty good before dumbfuck bedtime for Bonzo got there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carter was having it "pretty good"?  Really...  I mean REALLY?
Click to expand...


Yeah. We had a vibrant middle class back in those days. 

Really. I mean Really.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You destroyed yourself Joe. Stop trying to pawn it off. It reeks of desperation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm doing okay... I'm talking about everyone else, dumbass.
> 
> We had it pretty good before dumbfuck bedtime for Bonzo got there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, right Joe. You've got failure, bitterness and envy written all over you. Others succeeded where you failed and you've channeled all you frustrations on the rich and successful, like Reagan. That much is obvious.
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm more successful thanmost of my peer group, thanks.  

But the fact the middle class has been gutted in this country and we have obscene wealth inequality is not a problem erased by slinging personal insults. 

It just shows your inability to make a point.


----------



## Dot Com

one of these days, the middle class are no longer going to be able to afford any of the imported goods that the corporatists and their water-carriers (the politicians) are pushing on us because there won't be any middle-class left.


----------



## thanatos144

You fucking idiots do know the middle class is just a label invented by Karl Marx a right? God you communists are pathetic.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> You fucking idiots do know the middle class is just a label invented by Karl Marx a right? God you communists are pathetic.



Oh.. Karl Marx, right. 

Actually, the term is a lot older than that.  You might want to look up the origin of the word "Bourgeusis" (sp).  

Fact is, we had a middle class of laborers who had good paychecks because they had unions making sure they got a fair cut and a Federal Government who looked out for them instead of the rich.  

And the country was kind of awesome to live in (at least if you were white) up until the point where that senile old fuck of an actor decided the rich just didn't have enough, the poor dears.  

We totally need to fix that.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiots do know the middle class is just a label invented by Karl Marx a right? God you communists are pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.. Karl Marx, right.
> 
> Actually, the term is a lot older than that.  You might want to look up the origin of the word "Bourgeusis" (sp).
> 
> Fact is, we had a middle class of laborers who had good paychecks because they had unions making sure they got a fair cut and a Federal Government who looked out for them instead of the rich.
> 
> And the country was kind of awesome to live in (at least if you were white) up until the point where that senile old fuck of an actor decided the rich just didn't have enough, the poor dears.
> 
> We totally need to fix that.
Click to expand...


Good lord you really suck at history 

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

Please point out anything I got wrong. 

Thanks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Name one life ruined by McCarthy
> 
> Secind, Your Soviet pals tried to start WWIII with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, McCarthy gave his Wheeling WV Speech in Feb 1950 and then your ChiCom Pals started the Korean War 4 months later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not seeing how an incident where neither side used violence was going to start WWIII.
> 
> The Soviets told us to get out of Berlin because they were the ones who took it...
> 
> We could talk about the Hollywood blacklist, where dozens of people were denied work because of false accusations they were communists or just because they wouldn't testify in front of their co-workers.
Click to expand...


Name one Hollywood person Blacklisted by McCarthy

One name


----------



## Dot Com

yeah!!  Who cares about actors anyways?!!! Oops!  That was one of the Gipper's strong suits


----------



## Meathead

Dot Com said:


> yeah!!  Who cares about actors anyways?!!! Oops!  That was one of the Gipper's strong suits


True, just one of many.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> Please point out anything I got wrong.
> 
> Thanks.



The whole f****** post was wrong the first time you hear the words middle class is in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> yeah!!  Who cares about actors anyways?!!! Oops!  That was one of the Gipper's strong suits



Please name an actor MacArthur blacklisted

tapatalk post


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Please point out anything I got wrong.
> 
> Thanks.



Not for nothing, Joe but the number of things you've gotten "wrong" in this string alone would take hours to compile.  How about we simplify things and list what you've gotten "right"?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, Name one life ruined by McCarthy
> 
> Secind, Your Soviet pals tried to start WWIII with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, McCarthy gave his Wheeling WV Speech in Feb 1950 and then your ChiCom Pals started the Korean War 4 months later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not seeing how an incident where neither side used violence was going to start WWIII.
> 
> The Soviets told us to get out of Berlin because they were the ones who took it...
> 
> We could talk about the Hollywood blacklist, where dozens of people were denied work because of false accusations they were communists or just because they wouldn't testify in front of their co-workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one Hollywood person Blacklisted by McCarthy
> 
> One name
Click to expand...


Dalton Trumbo.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I got wrong.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for nothing, Joe but the number of things you've gotten "wrong" in this string alone would take hours to compile.  How about we simplify things and list what you've gotten "right"?
Click to expand...


In short, you really can't name any, then? 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I got wrong.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole f****** post was wrong the first time you hear the words middle class is in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Again, the term Middle Class long predates Marx.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I got wrong.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for nothing, Joe but the number of things you've gotten "wrong" in this string alone would take hours to compile.  How about we simplify things and list what you've gotten "right"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In short, you really can't name any, then?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Do you REALLY want to get embarrassed that way, Joe?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not for nothing, Joe but the number of things you've gotten "wrong" in this string alone would take hours to compile.  How about we simplify things and list what you've gotten "right"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, you really can't name any, then?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you REALLY want to get embarrassed that way, Joe?
Click to expand...


No, because you'll put on a bunch of tiresome crap from Bircher Websites that probably have nothing to do with whatever point I was originally making (because, honestly, I've lost interest already).  

Point is, the middle class is weaker today than it was in 1980.  Reagan had a lot to do with that, and we aren't better off as a country.


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, you really can't name any, then?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you REALLY want to get embarrassed that way, Joe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you'll put on a bunch of tiresome crap from Bircher Websites that probably have nothing to do with whatever point I was originally making (because, honestly, I've lost interest already).
> 
> Point is, the middle class is weaker today than it was in 1980.  Reagan had a lot to do with that, and we aren't better off as a country.
Click to expand...


^ that.


----------



## Camp

Didn't hear much about the terrorist promoter on Presidents day. Does this mean the revisionist Reagan fad is burned out?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not seeing how an incident where neither side used violence was going to start WWIII.
> 
> The Soviets told us to get out of Berlin because they were the ones who took it...
> 
> We could talk about the Hollywood blacklist, where dozens of people were denied work because of false accusations they were communists or just because they wouldn't testify in front of their co-workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Hollywood person Blacklisted by McCarthy
> 
> One name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dalton Trumbo.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/279298-senator-mccarthy-too-soon-forgotten-7.html#post6851048


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Didn't hear much about the terrorist promoter on Presidents day. Does this mean the revisionist Reagan fad is burned out?



You mean Obama's Muslim Brotherhood?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't hear much about the terrorist promoter on Presidents day. Does this mean the revisionist Reagan fad is burned out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Obama's Muslim Brotherhood?
Click to expand...


No, I meant Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and those segments of the Muhjahideen that went on to become Taliban and al Qaeda. I quess you could include the Muslim Brotherhood, weren't they in business when Reagan was giving all the other groups a pass?


----------



## Dante

[youtube]28K2CO-khdY[/youtube]

Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dante

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, you really can't name any, then?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you REALLY want to get embarrassed that way, Joe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because you'll put on a bunch of tiresome crap from Bircher Websites that probably have nothing to do with whatever point I was originally making (because, honestly, I've lost interest already).
> 
> Point is, the middle class is weaker today than it was in 1980.  Reagan had a lot to do with that, and we aren't better off as a country.
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

OK lefties, Reagan was a liberal. Feel better? So what does that make Barry Hussein?


----------



## Dante

whitehall said:


> OK lefties, Reagan was a liberal. Feel better? So what does that make Barry Hussein?



Reagan traded weapons with the enemy


----------



## thanatos144

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK lefties, Reagan was a liberal. Feel better? So what does that make Barry Hussein?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan traded weapons with the enemy
Click to expand...


Obama gave weapons away that killed Americans 

tapatalk post


----------



## whitehall

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK lefties, Reagan was a liberal. Feel better? So what does that make Barry Hussein?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan traded weapons with the enemy
Click to expand...


Trading weapons with the enemy sure makes Reagan look like a liberal.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't hear much about the terrorist promoter on Presidents day. Does this mean the revisionist Reagan fad is burned out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Obama's Muslim Brotherhood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I meant Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and those segments of the Muhjahideen that went on to become Taliban and al Qaeda. I quess you could include the Muslim Brotherhood, weren't they in business when Reagan was giving all the other groups a pass?
Click to expand...


All Muslims look alike, got it


----------



## Dante

thanatos144 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK lefties, Reagan was a liberal. Feel better? So what does that make Barry Hussein?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan traded weapons with the enemy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama gave weapons away that killed Americans
> 
> tapatalk post[/QUOTE [MENTION=18909]thanatos144[/MENTION]
> 
> wrong
> 
> and Reagan traded with the enemy, traded weapons. Sold them weapons. Armed America's enemies
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

Bill Clinton gave away nuclear technology to the NK which allowed them to build a freaking Bomb and he sold ICBM technology to China through his big campaign contributor "Loral".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dante said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan traded weapons with the enemy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama gave weapons away that killed Americans
> 
> tapatalk post[/QUOTE [MENTION=18909]thanatos144[/MENTION]
> 
> wrong
> 
> and Reagan traded with the enemy, traded weapons. Sold them weapons. Armed America's enemies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Brian Terry, killed by weapons Obama and Holder gave to violent Mexican drug gang
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

whitehall said:


> Bill Clinton gave away nuclear technology to the NK which allowed them to build a freaking Bomb and he sold ICBM technology to China through his big campaign contributor "Loral".




  the spin never stops


----------



## Dante

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama gave weapons away that killed Americans
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=18909]thanatos144[/MENTION]
> 
> wrong
> 
> and Reagan traded with the enemy, traded weapons. Sold them weapons. Armed America's enemies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.trbimg.com/img-52f30bd7/turbine/ct-sc-nw-brian-terry-jpg-20140205/2000/1890x200/IMG]
> 
> ^ Brian Terry, killed by weapons Obama and Holder gave to violent Mexican drug gang[/QUOTE]
> 
> Funny, I thought a member of the NRA sold those weapons. licensed firearms dealers sold weapons to illegal straw buyers
> 
> go figure
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton gave away nuclear technology to the NK which allowed them to build a freaking Bomb and he sold ICBM technology to China through his big campaign contributor "Loral".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the spin never stops
Click to expand...


It only seems like spin when you are too stupid to argue.


----------



## Dante

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations played a key role in helping the late Kim Jong-Il develop North Korea&#8217;s nuclear prowess from the mid 1990&#8242;s onwards.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld presided over a $200 million dollar contract to deliver equipment and services to build two light water reactor stations in North Korea in January 2000 when he was an executive director of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri).

In April 2002, the Bush administration announced that it would release $95 million of American taxpayer&#8217;s dollars to begin construction of the &#8216;harmless&#8217; light water reactors in North Korea. Bush argued that arming the megalomaniac dictator Kim Jong-Il with the potential to produce a hundred nukes a year was, &#8220;vital to the national security interests of the United States.&#8221; Bush released even more money for the same purpose in January 2003.

even the nuts know more than you do  » Who Gave North Korea Nukes In The First Place? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


----------



## Indeependent

I'm am actually witness to a partisan debate over what acts of scuminess are scummier.
How about the realization of what it take to be a politician...Only scum need apply.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dante said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=18909]thanatos144[/MENTION]
> 
> wrong
> 
> and Reagan traded with the enemy, traded weapons. Sold them weapons. Armed America's enemies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.trbimg.com/img-52f30bd7/turbine/ct-sc-nw-brian-terry-jpg-20140205/2000/1890x200/IMG]
> 
> ^ Brian Terry, killed by weapons Obama and Holder gave to violent Mexican drug gang[/QUOTE]
> 
> Funny, I thought a member of the NRA sold those weapons. licensed firearms dealers sold weapons to illegal straw buyers
> 
> go figure[/QUOTE]
> 
> It was Holder and Obama who were the Masterminds of the Plot that got Brian terry killed; they could and should be indicted as co-conspirators
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

I don't think there's much doubt left that we now know Reagan was a communist. Ample evidence has been shown on these boards the truth of the matter. Reagan was a Democrat and voted for FDR, he was in the movie business and made propaganda films, he was divorced, he was a union man, he lived in Chicago quite near Obama's house, which put him close to the University of Chicago. Chicago is where Obama taught. Reagan touted the SDI, spending millions and it never worked, Reagan never expected it to work. He tripled the national debt and forgot all about breaking the law with Iran Conta The biggie, however, is not all that evidence, but who made biggest deal ever with the Soviet Union? It was Reagan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> I don't think there's much doubt left that we now know Reagan was a communist. Ample evidence has been shown on these boards the truth of the matter. Reagan was a Democrat and voted for FDR, he was in the movie business and made propaganda films, he was divorced, he was a union man, he lived in Chicago quite near Obama's house, which put him close to the University of Chicago. Chicago is where Obama taught. Reagan touted the SDI, spending millions and it never worked, Reagan never expected it to work. He tripled the national debt and forgot all about breaking the law with Iran Conta The biggie, however, is not all that evidence, but who made biggest deal ever with the Soviet Union? It was Reagan.



^ Misses Uncle Joe


----------



## Dot Com

deficits don't matter.  Kernal of wisdom from a Repub.


----------



## Dante

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.trbimg.com/img-52f30bd7/turbine/ct-sc-nw-brian-terry-jpg-20140205/2000/1890x200/IMG]
> 
> ^ Brian Terry, killed by weapons Obama and Holder gave to violent Mexican drug gang[/quote]
> 
> Funny, I thought a member of the NRA sold those weapons. licensed firearms dealers sold weapons to illegal straw buyers
> 
> go figure[/QUOTE]
> 
> It's was Holder and Obama who were the Masterminds of the Plot that got Brian terry killed; they could and should be indicted as co-conspirators[/QUOTE]
> 
> masterminds? plot?  :eek:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Oldstyle

In order to be considered a "mastermind" wouldn't one need to have superior intellect?  One of the things that's become painfully obvious over the past five years is that neither Barack or Eric is as smart as they were held out to be and that both are shockingly unaware of most of the "goings on" around them until they hear about it from the news media.


----------



## longly

Ronald Reagan saved the world from  slavery. We were on the verge of  losing the Cold War and then God saved us by giving us Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was the only man capable of being elected president that had the courage to resisted the Soviets. 

The Democrats did pretty good fighting the Communist until Vietnam; they were defeated in Vietnam, but fortunately for us the Republicans, the conservatives and Ronald Reagan were not. We owe them a lot especially Ronny. 

If  Bill Clinton had been elected president, fortunately he was not old enough at the time, today I would be dead or in a slave labor camp.

There were some Liberal Democrats that still fought the Communists, but they were a minority.


----------



## JoeB131

longly said:


> Ronald Reagan saved the world from  slavery. We were on the verge of  losing the Cold War and then God saved us by giving us Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was the only man capable of being elected president that had the courage to resisted the Soviets.
> 
> The Democrats did pretty good fighting the Communist until Vietnam; they were defeated in Vietnam, but fortunately for us the Republicans, the conservatives and Ronald Reagan were not. We owe them a lot especially Ronny.
> 
> If  Bill Clinton had been elected president, fortunately he was not old enough at the time, today I would be dead or in a slave labor camp.
> 
> There were some Liberal Democrats that still fought the Communists, but they were a minority.



Reagan defeated Communism by empowering Jihadists.  

Frankly, I think the Jihadists are a lot more scary.  

At least a Communist isn't going to do something suicidal to try to get you. He doesn't think there are 76 virgins waiting for him in the afterlife.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan saved the world from  slavery. We were on the verge of  losing the Cold War and then God saved us by giving us Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was the only man capable of being elected president that had the courage to resisted the Soviets.
> 
> The Democrats did pretty good fighting the Communist until Vietnam; they were defeated in Vietnam, but fortunately for us the Republicans, the conservatives and Ronald Reagan were not. We owe them a lot especially Ronny.
> 
> If  Bill Clinton had been elected president, fortunately he was not old enough at the time, today I would be dead or in a slave labor camp.
> 
> There were some Liberal Democrats that still fought the Communists, but they were a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated Communism by empowering Jihadists.
> 
> Frankly, I think the Jihadists are a lot more scary.
> 
> At least a Communist isn't going to do something suicidal to try to get you. He doesn't think there are 76 virgins waiting for him in the afterlife.
Click to expand...


Both are evil goat fuckers 
By the way Reagan didn't help jihadists
tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> [
> 
> Both are evil goat fuckers
> By the way Reagan didn't help jihadists
> tapatalk post



Um, yeah, he did.  He armed the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan. 

one of the guys he armed was...Osama Bin Laden.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan saved the world from  slavery. We were on the verge of  losing the Cold War and then God saved us by giving us Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was the only man capable of being elected president that had the courage to resisted the Soviets.
> 
> The Democrats did pretty good fighting the Communist until Vietnam; they were defeated in Vietnam, but fortunately for us the Republicans, the conservatives and Ronald Reagan were not. We owe them a lot especially Ronny.
> 
> If  Bill Clinton had been elected president, fortunately he was not old enough at the time, today I would be dead or in a slave labor camp.
> 
> There were some Liberal Democrats that still fought the Communists, but they were a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated Communism by empowering Jihadists.
> 
> Frankly, I think the Jihadists are a lot more scary.
> 
> At least a Communist isn't going to do something suicidal to try to get you. He doesn't think there are 76 virgins waiting for him in the afterlife.
Click to expand...


You seem to know a lot about Communists


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Both are evil goat fuckers
> By the way Reagan didn't help jihadists
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, he did.  He armed the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan.
> 
> one of the guys he armed was...Osama Bin Laden.
Click to expand...


No he didn't the muhajaeen were not jihadists.  Osama was not in the country at the time 

tapatalk post


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Both are evil goat fuckers
> By the way Reagan didn't help jihadists
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, he did.  He armed the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan.
> 
> one of the guys he armed was...Osama Bin Laden.
Click to expand...


LOL. Liar

That's how much Reagan defeating Soviet Communism hurts, you have to tell The Big Lie

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toro

longly said:


> Ronald Reagan saved the world from  slavery. We were on the verge of  losing the Cold War and then God saved us by giving us Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was the only man capable of being elected president that had the courage to resisted the Soviets.
> 
> The Democrats did pretty good fighting the Communist until Vietnam; they were defeated in Vietnam, but fortunately for us the Republicans, the conservatives and Ronald Reagan were not. We owe them a lot especially Ronny.
> 
> If  Bill Clinton had been elected president, fortunately he was not old enough at the time, today I would be dead or in a slave labor camp.
> 
> There were some Liberal Democrats that still fought the Communists, but they were a minority.



lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from the trolls.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Both are evil goat fuckers
> By the way Reagan didn't help jihadists
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, he did.  He armed the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan.
> 
> one of the guys he armed was...Osama Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't the muhajaeen were not jihadists.  Osama was not in the country at the time
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


You need to educate yourself on Bin Laden's Life...

Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> After leaving college in 1979, bin Laden went to Pakistan, joined Abdullah Azzam and used money and machinery from his own construction company to help the mujahideen resistance in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[71] He later told a journalist: "I felt outraged that an injustice had been committed against the people of Afghanistan."[72] Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.
> 
> By 1984, bin Laden and Azzam established Maktab al-Khidamat, which funneled money, arms and fighters from around the Arab world into Afghanistan. Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune[73] paid for air tickets and accommodation, paid for paperwork with Pakistani authorities and provided other such services for the jihadi fighters. Bin Laden established camps inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan and trained volunteers from across the Muslim world to fight against the Soviet puppet regime, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan; he would also participate in some combat activity, such as the Battle of Jaji. It was during this time that he became idolised by many Arabs.[6]


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, he did.  He armed the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan.
> 
> one of the guys he armed was...Osama Bin Laden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't the muhajaeen were not jihadists.  Osama was not in the country at the time
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to educate yourself on Bin Laden's Life...
> 
> Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After leaving college in 1979, bin Laden went to Pakistan, joined Abdullah Azzam and used money and machinery from his own construction company to help the mujahideen resistance in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[71] He later told a journalist: "I felt outraged that an injustice had been committed against the people of Afghanistan."[72] Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.
> 
> By 1984, bin Laden and Azzam established Maktab al-Khidamat, which funneled money, arms and fighters from around the Arab world into Afghanistan. Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune[73] paid for air tickets and accommodation, paid for paperwork with Pakistani authorities and provided other such services for the jihadi fighters. Bin Laden established camps inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan and trained volunteers from across the Muslim world to fight against the Soviet puppet regime, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan; he would also participate in some combat activity, such as the Battle of Jaji. It was during this time that he became idolised by many Arabs.[6]
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Stop using Wikipedia if you want yo be taken seriously 

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Both are evil goat fuckers
> By the way Reagan didn't help jihadists
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, he did.  He armed the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan.
> 
> one of the guys he armed was...Osama Bin Laden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Liar
> 
> That's how much Reagan defeating Soviet Communism hurts, you have to tell The Big Lie
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Sorry, guy, I really think trading in the Soviets for Jihadists wasn't a particularly good deal for us.  

Not sure why you do.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, he did.  He armed the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan.
> 
> one of the guys he armed was...Osama Bin Laden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Liar
> 
> That's how much Reagan defeating Soviet Communism hurts, you have to tell The Big Lie
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, guy, I really think trading in the Soviets for Jihadists wasn't a particularly good deal for us.
> 
> Not sure why you do.
Click to expand...


















The "Reagan Funded bin Laden" lie earns 3 Goebbles


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't the muhajaeen were not jihadists.  Osama was not in the country at the time
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to educate yourself on Bin Laden's Life...
> 
> Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After leaving college in 1979, bin Laden went to Pakistan, joined Abdullah Azzam and used money and machinery from his own construction company to help the mujahideen resistance in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[71] He later told a journalist: "I felt outraged that an injustice had been committed against the people of Afghanistan."[72] Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.
> 
> By 1984, bin Laden and Azzam established Maktab al-Khidamat, which funneled money, arms and fighters from around the Arab world into Afghanistan. Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune[73] paid for air tickets and accommodation, paid for paperwork with Pakistani authorities and provided other such services for the jihadi fighters. Bin Laden established camps inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan and trained volunteers from across the Muslim world to fight against the Soviet puppet regime, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan; he would also participate in some combat activity, such as the Battle of Jaji. It was during this time that he became idolised by many Arabs.[6]
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop using Wikipedia if you want yo be taken seriously
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


People who need to attack sources are never taken seriously.

Okay. Prove that Reagan didn't fund Bin Laden.  

Thanks.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Liar
> 
> That's how much Reagan defeating Soviet Communism hurts, you have to tell The Big Lie
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, guy, I really think trading in the Soviets for Jihadists wasn't a particularly good deal for us.
> 
> Not sure why you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Reagan Funded bin Laden" lie earns 3 Goebbles
Click to expand...


Waaaaah, Frank doesn't want to believe it's true... 


How Reagan made a terrorist kingpin of Osama.


Bin Laden comes home to roost | NBC News


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to educate yourself on Bin Laden's Life...
> 
> Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop using Wikipedia if you want yo be taken seriously
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who need to attack sources are never taken seriously.
> 
> Okay. Prove that Reagan didn't fund Bin Laden.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Your source Is a wiki any retard can put whatever they want in it 

tapatalk post


----------



## longly

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to educate yourself on Bin Laden's Life...
> 
> Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop using Wikipedia if you want yo be taken seriously
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who need to attack sources are never taken seriously.
> 
> Okay. Prove that Reagan didn't fund Bin Laden.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


So what if some of the support Reagan provided the Pakistanis made its way to Bin Laden; war is a messy business, if one becomes paralyzed by fears of what will happen after the war you ends up losing the war.  We fight one war at a time.


----------



## Meathead

longly said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop using Wikipedia if you want yo be taken seriously
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who need to attack sources are never taken seriously.
> 
> Okay. Prove that Reagan didn't fund Bin Laden.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if some of the support Reagan provided the Pakistanis made its way to Bin Laden; war is a messy business, if one becomes paralyzed by fears of what will happen after the war you ends up losing the war.  We fight one war at a time.
Click to expand...

It's simply grasping at straws. They're still reeling in the face of the fall of their beloved Soviet Union of which the support of the Mujaheddin, begun by Carter and continued by Reagan played an important role.


----------



## JoeB131

longly said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop using Wikipedia if you want yo be taken seriously
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who need to attack sources are never taken seriously.
> 
> Okay. Prove that Reagan didn't fund Bin Laden.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if some of the support Reagan provided the Pakistanis made its way to Bin Laden; war is a messy business, if one becomes paralyzed by fears of what will happen after the war you ends up losing the war.  We fight one war at a time.
Click to expand...


Or you recognize that in a fight, you are backing the wrong side. 

We knew in 1979 the people we were backing in Afghanistan weren't Jeffersonian democrats, they were Islamic fanatics who hated ALL modernity and westernization.  They weren't fighting the Soviets because they "hated communism and loved freedom", they were fighting the Soviets because they were bringing in modernity and teaching girls how to read.  

And we armed these nutjobs anyway, and as a result, bin Laden became a hero to that MINORITY of Muslims who cling to the 11th century.  

But dammit, we were beating communism, and that was the important thing.  And so what if the USSR is now dozens of squabbling countries today like the Ukraine that are undergoing constant civil war, that's a lot better than a single partner we could do business with.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who need to attack sources are never taken seriously.
> 
> Okay. Prove that Reagan didn't fund Bin Laden.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what if some of the support Reagan provided the Pakistanis made its way to Bin Laden; war is a messy business, if one becomes paralyzed by fears of what will happen after the war you ends up losing the war.  We fight one war at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you recognize that in a fight, you are backing the wrong side.
> 
> We knew in 1979 the people we were backing in Afghanistan weren't Jeffersonian democrats, they were Islamic fanatics who hated ALL modernity and westernization.  They weren't fighting the Soviets because they "hated communism and loved freedom", they were fighting the Soviets because they were bringing in modernity and teaching girls how to read.
> 
> And we armed these nutjobs anyway, and as a result, bin Laden became a hero to that MINORITY of Muslims who cling to the 11th century.
> 
> But dammit, we were beating communism, and that was the important thing.  And so what if the USSR is now dozens of squabbling countries today like the Ukraine that are undergoing constant civil war, that's a lot better than a single partner we could do business with.
Click to expand...

We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?

I thought not.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> []We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?
> 
> I thought not.



I'm upset that 3000 _*Americans*_ were killed on 9/11 by people that Reagan armed and aided. 


And, no, I don't give a fuck about Poles, Czechs or anyone else, most of whom brought their misery on themselves. If they couldn't free themselves, it certainly wasn't our problem. And the eventual fall of the USSR had nothing to do with the assholes we armed in Afghanistan.  The Communist puppet regime in Kabul outlasted the Berlin Wall and even the USSR. 

I care about _*AMERICANS*_.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> []We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm upset that 3000 _*Americans*_ were killed on 9/11 by people that Reagan armed and aided.
> 
> 
> And, no, I don't give a fuck about Poles, Czechs or anyone else, most of whom brought their misery on themselves. If they couldn't free themselves, it certainly wasn't our problem. And the eventual fall of the USSR had nothing to do with the assholes we armed in Afghanistan.  The Communist puppet regime in Kabul outlasted the Berlin Wall and even the USSR.
> 
> I care about _*AMERICANS*_.
Click to expand...

You care about nothing but yourself. If you believe that these peoples who had the misfortune of living adjacent to the Soviet Union brought the oppression you wish for your own country on themselves, then you are obviously a low-life scumbag with serious intellectual and mental issues.

But then we already knew that.


----------



## bedowin62

libs r morons i swear to God.  nothing Reagan did; not even arming islamic fanatics; gave them a reason to attack us on 9-11.

where is the logic in these idiotic left-wing minds?

Russians killed over 1 million Afghanis; if anything arming resistance fighters was a reason to be thankful to the US.

the hijackers used PLASTIC KNIVES to do what they did; not weapons privided by Reagan in the 80's. Again libs are just idiots. if hte idiot blaming Reagan for 9-11 isnt a lib; he sure does look as stupid and ignorant as one.


----------



## bedowin62

the mujahideen was waging war; BACKED BY US BEFORE REAGAN TOOK OFFICE; and the Taliban DIDNT EXIST UNTIL THE CLINTON YEARS. 

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## editec

Ronald Reagan was NOT a conservative by the standards of the people who today, call themselves conservatives

By the standards of the time when he was in office, yes he was a CON.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Liberals hate Reagan for liberating Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism which to them is their Mecca Oz and Nirvana all at once. Think of it, a life where you have no freedom and the government tells you who you are and what you'll do 24/7/365 

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> []We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm upset that 3000 _*Americans*_ were killed on 9/11 by people that Reagan armed and aided.
> 
> 
> And, no, I don't give a fuck about Poles, Czechs or anyone else, most of whom brought their misery on themselves. If they couldn't free themselves, it certainly wasn't our problem. And the eventual fall of the USSR had nothing to do with the assholes we armed in Afghanistan.  The Communist puppet regime in Kabul outlasted the Berlin Wall and even the USSR.
> 
> I care about _*AMERICANS*_.
Click to expand...


^ Lying Fuck


----------



## hunarcy

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what if some of the support Reagan provided the Pakistanis made its way to Bin Laden; war is a messy business, if one becomes paralyzed by fears of what will happen after the war you ends up losing the war.  We fight one war at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you recognize that in a fight, you are backing the wrong side.
> 
> We knew in 1979 the people we were backing in Afghanistan weren't Jeffersonian democrats, they were Islamic fanatics who hated ALL modernity and westernization.  They weren't fighting the Soviets because they "hated communism and loved freedom", they were fighting the Soviets because they were bringing in modernity and teaching girls how to read.
> 
> And we armed these nutjobs anyway, and as a result, bin Laden became a hero to that MINORITY of Muslims who cling to the 11th century.
> 
> But dammit, we were beating communism, and that was the important thing.  And so what if the USSR is now dozens of squabbling countries today like the Ukraine that are undergoing constant civil war, that's a lot better than a single partner we could do business with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?
> 
> I thought not.
Click to expand...


That troll constantly says that Reagan funded Al Qaeda.  He's just a liar.

Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera (journalist) Tayseer Alouni in October 2001: "The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed."

"A variety of sources  CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such as Vincent Cannistraro  deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them."

"But Bergen and others argue that there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land since there were a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight; that Arab Afghans themselves had no need for American funds since they received several hundred million dollars a year from non-American, Muslim sources; that Americans could not have trained mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan; and that the Afghan Arabs were almost invariably militant Islamists reflexively hostile to Westerners whether or not the Westerners were helping the Muslim Afghans."

"According to Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, the idea that "the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

Osama was of the ARAB-Afghans. ie. Of the foreign Arabs who showed up in Afghan to help out the local Muslim Afghans fighting against the USSR. This conflict is not over either. It now continues in Chechnya for offensive jihad-build-up purposes."


We did not train, fund, or materielize a young Osama bin laden. - Reader comments for The Investigative Project on Terrorism


----------



## Camp

Geez, this is nothing more than a reader comment from another site. Did anyone bother to read the whole page. Gets pretty nasty in regards to Reagan.


----------



## Camp

hunarcy said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you recognize that in a fight, you are backing the wrong side.
> 
> We knew in 1979 the people we were backing in Afghanistan weren't Jeffersonian democrats, they were Islamic fanatics who hated ALL modernity and westernization.  They weren't fighting the Soviets because they "hated communism and loved freedom", they were fighting the Soviets because they were bringing in modernity and teaching girls how to read.
> 
> And we armed these nutjobs anyway, and as a result, bin Laden became a hero to that MINORITY of Muslims who cling to the 11th century.
> 
> But dammit, we were beating communism, and that was the important thing.  And so what if the USSR is now dozens of squabbling countries today like the Ukraine that are undergoing constant civil war, that's a lot better than a single partner we could do business with.
> 
> 
> 
> We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That troll constantly says that Reagan funded Al Qaeda.  He's just a liar.
> 
> Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera (journalist) Tayseer Alouni in October 2001: "The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed."
> 
> "A variety of sources &#8212; CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such as Vincent Cannistraro &#8212; deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them."
> 
> "But Bergen and others argue that there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land since there were a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight; that Arab Afghans themselves had no need for American funds since they received several hundred million dollars a year from non-American, Muslim sources; that Americans could not have trained mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan; and that the Afghan Arabs were almost invariably militant Islamists reflexively hostile to Westerners whether or not the Westerners were helping the Muslim Afghans."
> 
> "According to Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, the idea that "the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."
> 
> Osama was of the ARAB-Afghans. ie. Of the foreign Arabs who showed up in Afghan to help out the local Muslim Afghans fighting against the USSR. This conflict is not over either. It now continues in Chechnya for offensive jihad-build-up purposes."
> 
> 
> We did not train, fund, or materielize a young Osama bin laden. - Reader comments for The Investigative Project on Terrorism
Click to expand...


Um, your proof and evidence to call somebody a lying fuck is just a comment made by a person making a comment at another site. Just like we do here. And if you read the whole page you will find some pretty harsh and negative stuff about Reagan.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liberals hate Reagan for liberating Eastern Europe from Soviet Communism which to them is their Mecca Oz and Nirvana all at once. Think of it, a life where you have no freedom and the government tells you who you are and what you'll do 24/7/365
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China



Right. 

Reagan gave a speech to the Berlin Wall and all the Eastern Europeans slapped themselves on the forehead and said, "Damn, what were we thinking?"

Right Wing Fairy Tales for people who get their news from Hate Radio. 

Reality, Reagan had very little to do with the fall of the USSR. It had a lot more to do with the nationalism of the hundreds of people within the USSR and Warsaw pact.  

The fall of the USSR was no more a "failure" of Communism than the fall of the British Empire was a failure of Capitalism.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> []We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm upset that 3000 _*Americans*_ were killed on 9/11 by people that Reagan armed and aided.
> 
> 
> And, no, I don't give a fuck about Poles, Czechs or anyone else, most of whom brought their misery on themselves. If they couldn't free themselves, it certainly wasn't our problem. And the eventual fall of the USSR had nothing to do with the assholes we armed in Afghanistan.  The Communist puppet regime in Kabul outlasted the Berlin Wall and even the USSR.
> 
> I care about _*AMERICANS*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You care about nothing but yourself. If you believe that these peoples who had the misfortune of living adjacent to the Soviet Union brought the oppression you wish for your own country on themselves, then you are obviously a low-life scumbag with serious intellectual and mental issues.
> 
> But then we already knew that.
Click to expand...


Of the countries in the Warsaw Pact, all of them EXCEPT Poland were members of the Axis during the war.  Even Czechoslovakia after it was dismembered, the rump states all threw in with the Axis. 

And before you break out the hankies for Poland, Poland pulled a lot of really underhanded shit during the Russian Polish war of 1919-1921.

Here was the point I was trying to make, that goes right over your head.  We armed some VERY DANGEROUS PEOPLE in an attempt to irritate the USSR in Afghanistan.  No one really thought arming the Mujahadeen would bring down the USSR (and for those paying attention, it didn't.)  in fact, I was in the Army in 1989, and guess what, the Army was still publishing those monthly threat assessment reports pretty much all the way up to the day the Berlin Wall fell.  

NO one saw it coming.


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> the mujahideen was waging war; BACKED BY US BEFORE REAGAN TOOK OFFICE; and the Taliban DIDNT EXIST UNTIL THE CLINTON YEARS.
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves



It doesn't matter what they called their little clubs.  

Bin Laden and Mullah Omar and the rest of the leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda were the guys getting teh boxes of Stinger Missiles marked "Love, Ronnie".


----------



## thanatos144

Joe get over it.  Reagan showed that communists like you are failures 

tapatalk post


----------



## Indeependent

thanatos144 said:


> Joe get over it.  Reagan showed that communists like you are failures
> 
> tapatalk post



Reagan put the Maytag Man on the unemployment line.


----------



## thanatos144

Indeependent said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe get over it.  Reagan showed that communists like you are failures
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan put the Maytag Man on the unemployment line.
Click to expand...


No that would be Maytag that did that 

tapatalk post


----------



## Dante

Reagan Legacy Project
 Monday, Feb 2, 2009 03:28 AM PST
How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president. 



> George Will
> 
> 1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> Edit event
> 
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own&#8212;a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But recent events&#8212;Reagan&#8217;s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations...Attempts by administration hardliners to get &#8220;soft&#8221; officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of &#8220;moral disarmament&#8221; and Safire mocking Reagan&#8217;s rapport with Gorbachev: &#8220;He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev&#8217;s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.&#8221;
> 
> It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]





> December 7-8, 1987: Reagan, Gorbachev Sign Arms Reduction Treaty
> Edit event
> 
> Gorbachev and Reagan sign the INF treaty...Altogether, some 80 percent of Americans support the treaty.
> 
> Unable to Continue Longer-Range Negotiations - Reagan wants to build on the INF agreement to reopen the similarly moribund START negotiations (see May 1982 and After), but recognizes that there is not enough time left in his administration to accomplish such a long-term goal. Instead, he celebrates his status as the first American president to begin reducing nuclear arms by scheduling a visit to the Soviet Union.
> 
> Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev&#8217;s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY&#8212;see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: &#8220;Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.&#8221;
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: &#8220;Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.&#8221; Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a &#8220;suicide pact.&#8221;
> 
> Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan &#8220;wildly wrong&#8221; in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call &#8220;summit fever,&#8221; accusing Reagan of &#8220;appeasement&#8221; both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan&#8217;s &#8220;cutting deals with the evil empire&#8221; (see March 8, 1983). They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
> 
> 
> Senate Ratification and a Presidential Rebuke - All the protests from hardline opponents of the treaty...
> 
> ...
> [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 142-145]



    [MENTION=18909]thanatos144[/MENTION]    [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]    [MENTION=46133]Indeependent[/MENTION]    [MENTION=47248]bedowin62[/MENTION]    [MENTION=34777]Meathead[/MENTION]    [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]    [MENTION=42934]hunarcy[/MENTION]    [MENTION=44680]Camp[/MENTION]    [MENTION=46604]longly[/MENTION]    [MENTION=27234]natstew[/MENTION]    [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]    [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION]   ​


----------



## hunarcy

Camp said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We understand that you're upset, especially with Reagan, about your defeat in the Cold War, but have you ever thought to consider the plight of the Poles, Czechs and the host of others who were oppressed by your comrades?
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That troll constantly says that Reagan funded Al Qaeda.  He's just a liar.
> 
> Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera (journalist) Tayseer Alouni in October 2001: "The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed."
> 
> "A variety of sources  CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such as Vincent Cannistraro  deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them."
> 
> "But Bergen and others argue that there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land since there were a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight; that Arab Afghans themselves had no need for American funds since they received several hundred million dollars a year from non-American, Muslim sources; that Americans could not have trained mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan; and that the Afghan Arabs were almost invariably militant Islamists reflexively hostile to Westerners whether or not the Westerners were helping the Muslim Afghans."
> 
> "According to Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, the idea that "the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."
> 
> Osama was of the ARAB-Afghans. ie. Of the foreign Arabs who showed up in Afghan to help out the local Muslim Afghans fighting against the USSR. This conflict is not over either. It now continues in Chechnya for offensive jihad-build-up purposes."
> 
> 
> We did not train, fund, or materielize a young Osama bin laden. - Reader comments for The Investigative Project on Terrorism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, your proof and evidence to call somebody a lying fuck is just a comment made by a person making a comment at another site. Just like we do here. And if you read the whole page you will find some pretty harsh and negative stuff about Reagan.
Click to expand...


Wow, are you REALLY so ignorant that you can't see the comment from Peter Bergin, an acknowledged expert on the subject?  Why are you posting?


----------



## Dante

hunarcy said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That troll constantly says that Reagan funded Al Qaeda.  He's just a liar.
> 
> Osama bin Laden explained the origin of the term in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera (journalist) Tayseer Alouni in October 2001: "The name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed."
> 
> "A variety of sources &#8212; CNN journalist Peter Bergen, Pakistani ISI Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, and CIA operatives involved in the Afghan program, such as Vincent Cannistraro &#8212; deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them."
> 
> "But Bergen and others argue that there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land since there were a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight; that Arab Afghans themselves had no need for American funds since they received several hundred million dollars a year from non-American, Muslim sources; that Americans could not have trained mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan; and that the Afghan Arabs were almost invariably militant Islamists reflexively hostile to Westerners whether or not the Westerners were helping the Muslim Afghans."
> 
> "According to Peter Bergen, known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, the idea that "the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden ... a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. ... Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. ... The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."
> 
> Osama was of the ARAB-Afghans. ie. Of the foreign Arabs who showed up in Afghan to help out the local Muslim Afghans fighting against the USSR. This conflict is not over either. It now continues in Chechnya for offensive jihad-build-up purposes."
> 
> 
> We did not train, fund, or materielize a young Osama bin laden. - Reader comments for The Investigative Project on Terrorism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, your proof and evidence to call somebody a lying fuck is just a comment made by a person making a comment at another site. Just like we do here. And if you read the whole page you will find some pretty harsh and negative stuff about Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, are you REALLY so ignorant that you can't see the comment from Peter Bergin, an acknowledged expert on the subject?  Why are you posting?
Click to expand...


Many Muslims from other countries assisted the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. Some groups of these veterans became significant players in later conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab Islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the Muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments.[39] These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.

Mujahideen forces caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces, and made the war very costly for the Soviet Union. In 1989 the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from Afghanistan. Many districts and cities then fell to the mujahideen; in 1992 the DRA's last president, Mohammad Najibullah, was overthrown. - Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 3 July 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[2] Following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December Operation Storm-333 and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[12]

President Reagan greatly expanded the program as part of the Reagan Doctrine of aiding anti-Soviet resistance movements abroad. To execute this policy, Reagan deployed CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary officers to equip the Mujihadeen forces against the Red Army. Although the CIA and Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson have received the most attention for their roles, the key architect of the strategy was Michael G. Vickers, a young CIA paramilitary officer working for Gust Avrakotos, the CIA's regional head who had a close relationship with Wilson. Vicker's strategy was to use a broad mix of weapons, tactics, logistics, along with training programs, to enhance the rebels' ability to fight a guerilla war against the Soviets.

[13][14] Reagan's program assisted in ending the Soviet's occupation in Afghanistan.[15][16] A Pentagon senior official, Michael Pillsbury, successfully advocated providing Stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance, according to recent books and academic articles.[17]

The program relied heavily on the Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had a close relationship with Wilson. His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.[18] Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China,[19] the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992[citation needed]. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[18]

According to Peter Bergen, writing in Holy War, Inc., *no Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen*.[20] The skittish CIA had fewer than 10 operatives in the region because it "feared it would be blamed, like in Guatemala".[21] Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time, and the US contributed generously to aiding Afghan refugees.

The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas. The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that, in the 1990s, the U.S. conducted a "buy-back" program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists. This program may have been covertly renewed following the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in late 2001, out of fear that remaining Stingers could be used against U.S. forces in the country.[22] - Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*
"No Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen" *

*Nothing is as black and white as you people try and portray it -- plausible deniability*


----------



## hunarcy

Dante said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, your proof and evidence to call somebody a lying fuck is just a comment made by a person making a comment at another site. Just like we do here. And if you read the whole page you will find some pretty harsh and negative stuff about Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, are you REALLY so ignorant that you can't see the comment from Peter Bergin, an acknowledged expert on the subject?  Why are you posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many Muslims from other countries assisted the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. Some groups of these veterans became significant players in later conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab Islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the Muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments.[39] These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.
> 
> Mujahideen forces caused serious casualties to the Soviet forces, and made the war very costly for the Soviet Union. In 1989 the Soviet Union withdrew its forces from Afghanistan. Many districts and cities then fell to the mujahideen; in 1992 the DRA's last president, Mohammad Najibullah, was overthrown. - Mujahideen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> On 3 July 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[2] Following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December Operation Storm-333 and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Babrak Karmal, Carter announced, "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[12]
> 
> President Reagan greatly expanded the program as part of the Reagan Doctrine of aiding anti-Soviet resistance movements abroad. To execute this policy, Reagan deployed CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary officers to equip the Mujihadeen forces against the Red Army. Although the CIA and Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson have received the most attention for their roles, the key architect of the strategy was Michael G. Vickers, a young CIA paramilitary officer working for Gust Avrakotos, the CIA's regional head who had a close relationship with Wilson. Vicker's strategy was to use a broad mix of weapons, tactics, logistics, along with training programs, to enhance the rebels' ability to fight a guerilla war against the Soviets.
> 
> [13][14] Reagan's program assisted in ending the Soviet's occupation in Afghanistan.[15][16] A Pentagon senior official, Michael Pillsbury, successfully advocated providing Stinger missiles to the Afghan resistance, according to recent books and academic articles.[17]
> 
> The program relied heavily on the Pakistani President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who had a close relationship with Wilson. His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.[18] Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China,[19] the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992[citation needed]. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[18]
> 
> According to Peter Bergen, writing in Holy War, Inc., *no Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen*.[20] The skittish CIA had fewer than 10 operatives in the region because it "feared it would be blamed, like in Guatemala".[21] Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time, and the US contributed generously to aiding Afghan refugees.
> 
> The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas. The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that, in the 1990s, the U.S. conducted a "buy-back" program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists. This program may have been covertly renewed following the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in late 2001, out of fear that remaining Stingers could be used against U.S. forces in the country.[22] - Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> *
> "No Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen" *
> 
> *Nothing is as black and white as you people try and portray it -- plausible deniability*
Click to expand...


>>>The story about bin Laden and the CIA  that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden  is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this.* In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s.* And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him<<<<

CNN.com - Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash - Aug 24, 2006

>>>The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, ... the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name<<<<

Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth | Fox News

It's sad that you insist on ignoring the truth.  But, that doesn't make what you imagine true at all!


----------



## JoeB131

"Hey, BIn Laden brought his own guns. We weren't responsible for him at all, other than the fact we were arming all of his buddies and providing them intelligence as to where the Russians were." 

But at least we kept them Dirty Stinking Commies from teaching Girls how to Read. That's the important thing.


----------



## Dante

[MENTION=42934]hunarcy[/MENTION]





hunarcy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *Nothing is as black and white as you people try and portray it -- plausible deniability*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>*The story about bin Laden and the CIA &#8212; that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden &#8212; is simply a folk myth. * ....
> 
> In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s.
> 
> And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him
> 
> CNN.com - Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash - Aug 24, 2006
> 
> >>>The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, ... the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name<<<<
> 
> Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth | Fox News
> 
> It's sad that you insist on ignoring the truth.  But, that doesn't make what you imagine true at all!
Click to expand...


*>>> True. It's a myth worthy of FOX News and WND* 

The USA has backed people, movements, and governments that at first glance looked like any cooperation would be contrary to American interests or principles, but again: *nothing is as black and white as people like you hope to portray them*

OBL was known to the US intel agencies, and intel agencies in other governments years before 9/11. OBL was later tracked as a person of interest harming US assets around the time of 1993 attack on WTC in NYC. 

and because we know OBL is later tracked (he was a known entity years before 1993) you are revealed to be a loon:  "The FBI had a mole inside al Qaeda who met with Osama bin Laden eight years prior to 9/11 and knew he planned to finance terror attacks, but the bureau declined to tell Congressional investigators or the 9/11 Commission about the mole, sources involved in the case told NBC News." FBI Never Revealed It Had Al Qaeda Mole Who Met Bin Laden - NBC News

 even right wing nutjob sources play the game with facts loosely based on fact that OBL was a known entity: Former FBI Translator: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11 Washington's Blog


----------



## Dante

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]





JoeB131 said:


> "Hey, BIn Laden brought his own guns. We weren't responsible for him at all, other than the fact we were arming all of his buddies and providing them intelligence as to where the Russians were."
> 
> But at least we kept them Dirty Stinking Commies from teaching Girls how to Read. That's the important thing.


----------



## bedowin62

it's comical for LWNJs to talk about revisionist history; ESPECIALLY  regarding the Reagan years.

 all that "reagan" debt? 8 years of Dems holding the purse strings

so many Dems voted FOR Reagan's policies the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them. oh by the way it was clinton who abandoned resistence to the Taliban. there was no Taliban in the Reagan years.

libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62

there's a leftard here implying that Russians killed 1 million Afghanis because they only wanted to teach young girls to read

 good one nutjob. ok continue drooling!


----------



## Dante

bedowin62 said:


> it's comical for LWNJs to talk about revisionist history; ESPECIALLY  regarding the Reagan years.
> 
> all that "reagan" debt? 8 years of Dems holding the purse strings
> 
> so many Dems voted FOR Reagan's policies the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them. oh by the way it was clinton who abandoned resistence to the Taliban. there was no Taliban in the Reagan years.
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves



Go away troll!


For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate


----------



## hunarcy

[MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]



Dante said:


> and because we know OBL is later tracked (he was a known entity years before 1993) you are revealed to be a loon:



LMAO@Dante!!!!!

Wow, Dante, are you so illiterate that you can't read an article and realize that I have put forth no opinion, but instead only quoted an acknowledged expert, journalist Peter Bergin?  And, are you putting yourself forward as more of an expert on the subject than Bergin, who has been reporting on this story for more than a decade?  

There DOES seem to be a loon on this thread, but it certainly isn't me.  Thanks for revealing yourself so I don't waste time on you any further.


----------



## hunarcy

Dante said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's comical for LWNJs to talk about revisionist history; ESPECIALLY  regarding the Reagan years.
> 
> all that "reagan" debt? 8 years of Dems holding the purse strings
> 
> so many Dems voted FOR Reagan's policies the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them. oh by the way it was clinton who abandoned resistence to the Taliban. there was no Taliban in the Reagan years.
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go away troll!
> 
> 
> For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate
Click to expand...


While, of course, Democrats controlled the House and controlled the budgetary process.

Keep trying.


----------



## Dante

hunarcy said:


> [MENTION=15512]Dante[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> and because we know OBL is later tracked (he was a known entity years before 1993) you are revealed to be a loon:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO@Dante!!!!!
> 
> Wow, Dante, are you so illiterate that you can't read an article and realize that I have put forth no opinion, but instead only quoted an acknowledged expert, journalist Peter Bergin?  And, are you putting yourself forward as more of an expert on the subject than Bergin, who has been reporting on this story for more than a decade?
> 
> There DOES seem to be a loon on this thread, but it certainly isn't me.  Thanks for revealing yourself so I don't waste time on you any further.
Click to expand...


A reporter reporting on a subject cannot be contradicted or shown to be in error?

my oh my, who is a moron?

and you put forth no opinion?


----------



## hunarcy

Dante said:


> A reporter reporting on a subject cannot be contradicted or shown to be in error?
> 
> my oh my, who is a moron?
> 
> and you put forth no opinion?



You open yourself up for the retort that obviously YOU are a moron.  

Now, while you keep trying to find a way to rebut Bergin, know that you'd be MUCH better off to educate yourself rather than continue your quest to create a link between Reagan and bin Laden.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottabad/dp/0307955885]Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden from 9/11 to Abbottabad: Peter L. Bergen: 9780307955883: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Happy reading.


----------



## bedowin62

leftard; Dems controlled the House for all 8 Reagan years and both the House and Senate for 2 years. 
\
it's hilarious the way you left-wing morons try to make a point when in reality you're just spewing the same moronic excues for your own complicity and collusion.
the term Reagan Democrat was coined to describe Democrats in Congress that voted for the Reagan Agenda. and  you like to mention that Reagan raised taxes which you LWNJs love too. why cant Reagan  get any love from  you leftardz?


waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! mommy mommy mean ol republicans made me vote FOR Reagan's policies!!  THEY MADE MY DEMS TO THE SAME THING UNDER BUSH TOO!!! 
and they're still doing it today under obama!

i'm sensing a theme leftard; decades of idiotic excuse-making from liberals


----------



## Dante

hunarcy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reporter reporting on a subject cannot be contradicted or shown to be in error?
> 
> my oh my, who is a moron?
> 
> and you put forth no opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You open yourself up for the retort that obviously YOU are a moron.
> 
> Now, while you keep trying to find a way to rebut Bergin, know that you'd be MUCH better off to educate yourself rather than continue your quest to create a link between Reagan and bin Laden.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottabad/dp/0307955885]Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden from 9/11 to Abbottabad: Peter L. Bergen: 9780307955883: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Happy reading.
Click to expand...


you're still confused. Go back and see where Dante says al qaeda and Regan/CIA link is based on myths.


then...

go back and see where Dante also acknowledges connections between bin laden and the US government aid


----------



## Dante

hunarcy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's comical for LWNJs to talk about revisionist history; ESPECIALLY  regarding the Reagan years.
> 
> all that "reagan" debt? 8 years of Dems holding the purse strings
> 
> so many Dems voted FOR Reagan's policies the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them. oh by the way it was clinton who abandoned resistence to the Taliban. there was no Taliban in the Reagan years.
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go away troll!
> 
> 
> For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While, of course, Democrats controlled the House and controlled the budgetary process.
> 
> Keep trying.
Click to expand...


For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate

One house of the US Congress


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> leftard; Dems controlled the House for all 8 Reagan years and both the House and Senate for 2 years.
> \
> it's hilarious the way you left-wing morons try to make a point when in reality you're just spewing the same moronic excues for your own complicity and collusion.
> the term Reagan Democrat was coined to describe Democrats in Congress that voted for the Reagan Agenda. and  you like to mention that Reagan raised taxes which you LWNJs love too. why cant Reagan  get any love from  you leftardz?
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! mommy mommy mean ol republicans made me vote FOR Reagan's policies!!  THEY MADE MY DEMS TO THE SAME THING UNDER BUSH TOO!!!
> and they're still doing it today under obama!
> 
> i'm sensing a theme leftard; decades of idiotic excuse-making from liberals



You really should have googled 'Reagan Democrat' before you call people names and try to convince folks that you know what you are talking about. I was there. I know what it means. You don't know what the term means.


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> there's a leftard here implying that Russians killed 1 million Afghanis because they only wanted to teach young girls to read
> 
> good one nutjob. ok continue drooling!



Hey, Bedwetter, a million people died because the terrorists... oh, i'm sorry, "Freedom Fighters" dragged on the war for 9 years.  

And then they turned around and bit us in the ass. 

I'm reminded of the Israeli story about the girl who picks up a viper to warm it up, and the minute it is warm enough, it bites here. 

"You knew what I was when you picked me up", the Viper said as it slithered away!


----------



## hunarcy

Dante said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reporter reporting on a subject cannot be contradicted or shown to be in error?
> 
> my oh my, who is a moron?
> 
> and you put forth no opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You open yourself up for the retort that obviously YOU are a moron.
> 
> Now, while you keep trying to find a way to rebut Bergin, know that you'd be MUCH better off to educate yourself rather than continue your quest to create a link between Reagan and bin Laden.
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Ten-Year-Search-Laden-Abbottabad/dp/0307955885]Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden from 9/11 to Abbottabad: Peter L. Bergen: 9780307955883: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Happy reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're still confused. Go back and see where Dante says al qaeda and Regan/CIA link is based on myths.
> 
> 
> then...
> 
> go back and see where Dante also acknowledges connections between bin laden and the US government aid
Click to expand...


So, you believe you are an expert and your word should be taken over those who have researched, reported and been acknowledged as accurate.

The only confusion I had was that I thought you were sane.

Shuffle on down the road because you're a clown.


----------



## hunarcy

Dante said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go away troll!
> 
> 
> For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While, of course, Democrats controlled the House and controlled the budgetary process.
> 
> Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate
> 
> One house of the US Congress
Click to expand...


Yep, as I said, Democrats controlled the House and controlled the budgetary process.  Thanks for acknowledging I was correct.


----------



## longly

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> leftard; Dems controlled the House for all 8 Reagan years and both the House and Senate for 2 years.
> \
> it's hilarious the way you left-wing morons try to make a point when in reality you're just spewing the same moronic excues for your own complicity and collusion.
> the term Reagan Democrat was coined to describe Democrats in Congress that voted for the Reagan Agenda. and  you like to mention that Reagan raised taxes which you LWNJs love too. why cant Reagan  get any love from  you leftardz?
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! mommy mommy mean ol republicans made me vote FOR Reagan's policies!!  THEY MADE MY DEMS TO THE SAME THING UNDER BUSH TOO!!!
> and they're still doing it today under obama!
> 
> i'm sensing a theme leftard; decades of idiotic excuse-making from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have googled 'Reagan Democrat' before you call people names and try to convince folks that you know what you are talking about. I was there. I know what it means. You don't know what the term means.
Click to expand...


The meaning of Reagan Democrat is me; I am a Reagan Democrat. However, I might have not  voted for him if it had not been for the Cold  War.  But still the fact remains that Reagan saved the World form communist slavery and all freedom loving people should be eternally  grateful; it is a shame that his birthday is not a national holiday.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> leftard; Dems controlled the House for all 8 Reagan years and both the House and Senate for 2 years.
> \
> it's hilarious the way you left-wing morons try to make a point when in reality you're just spewing the same moronic excues for your own complicity and collusion.
> the term Reagan Democrat was coined to describe Democrats in Congress that voted for the Reagan Agenda. and  you like to mention that Reagan raised taxes which you LWNJs love too. why cant Reagan  get any love from  you leftardz?
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!! mommy mommy mean ol republicans made me vote FOR Reagan's policies!!  THEY MADE MY DEMS TO THE SAME THING UNDER BUSH TOO!!!
> and they're still doing it today under obama!
> 
> i'm sensing a theme leftard; decades of idiotic excuse-making from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really should have googled 'Reagan Democrat' before you call people names and try to convince folks that you know what you are talking about. I was there. I know what it means. You don't know what the term means.
Click to expand...




as always,this is all the reaganuts can post  when they are cornered with facts they cant refute about reagan.post


----------



## LA RAM FAN

so much for the reaganuts beliefs that Reagan was responsible for the collapse of the soviet union.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWolDwBO1nM]CIA says Reagan had NOTHING to do with Soviet Union's demise - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> so much for the reaganuts beliefs that Reagan was responsible for the collapse of the soviet union.
> 
> CIA says Reagan had NOTHING to do with Soviet Union's demise - YouTube



Wait, the same CIA who said the USSR was in no danger of collapsing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> so much for the reaganuts beliefs that Reagan was responsible for the collapse of the soviet union.
> 
> CIA says Reagan had NOTHING to do with Soviet Union's demise - YouTube



Is 9/11 a CIA disinformation agent?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from the troll kid CRUSADER RETARD.


----------



## bedowin62

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from the troll kid CRUSADER RETARD.





you are easily one of the biggest nutjobs here. what was  your screen name on msn message boards?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> two farts in a row from the troll kid CRUSADER RETARD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are easily one of the biggest nutjobs here. what was  your screen name on msn message boards?
Click to expand...



nut jobs are trolls like crusader retard and political chick who worship reagan  ignoring reality and facts that he was evil and corrupt changing the subject when they are cornered with facts they cant refute..

instead of acting like resident troll crusader retard- who everybody at this site knows  really is the resident troll here,instead of acting like him,shooting the messenger cause you cant refute facts,why dont you stop trolling and address these facts that he ignores bellow about reagan?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

William Casey

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

these were actual spoken words from former CIA director william casey that Reagan appointed.NOT MINE.


you going to deny REALITY that Carter came into office and tried to get rid of the CIA firing Fords appointee George Bush sr and replacing him with Stansfiled Turner who cleaned house, firing covert operations specialists from the CIA reforming that organization, then Reagan came in and fired Turner and appointed and kept on Willaim Casey who got the CIA back to their  dirty tricks and evil ways again going back to covert operations?

Here is the REAL Ronald Reagan exposed.

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 
Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "


Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans

trolls like Crusader Retard,have no answers for these facts.why dont YOU address them instead of insulting the messenger?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

so much for the fairy tales and hot air spun by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard that Reagan ended the cold war.as always,Crusader Retard gets his ass handed to him on a platter from me and thats WHY i get called a nutjob since the truth hurts people around here.



Jonathan Weiler: Why Ronald Reagan Didn't Really Win the Cold War

Reagan Didn?t End the Cold War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagans and Thatchers unremitting malice toward the communist state.

Crusader Retard will of course retreat and hide behind his video of Reagans Mr Gorbachev,tear down this wall speech and claim he won the debate of course.never fails.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan never wanted Bush as his VP. He had to take him

I can't say anymore or someone will turn me in to their CIA friends

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan never wanted Bush as his VP. He had to take him
> 
> *I can't say anymore or someone will turn me in to their CIA friends*
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China



Um, yeah, guy.  You don't come off as nutty at all.


----------



## Camp

Well, whoever brought down the old USSR forgot to send a memo to Putin.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> so much for the fairy tales and hot air spun by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard that Reagan ended the cold war.as always,Crusader Retard gets his ass handed to him on a platter from me and thats WHY i get called a nutjob since the truth hurts people around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weiler: Why Ronald Reagan Didn't Really Win the Cold War
> 
> Reagan Didn?t End the Cold War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagans and Thatchers unremitting malice toward the communist state.
> 
> Crusader Retard will of course retreat and hide behind his video of Reagans Mr Gorbachev,tear down this wall speech and claim he won the debate of course.never fails.



i see crusader retard and none of the other reaganuts have any rebuttals to these facts that prove that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Well, whoever brought down the old USSR forgot to send a memo to Putin.



Russia =/= USSR


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> so much for the fairy tales and hot air spun by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard that Reagan ended the cold war.as always,Crusader Retard gets his ass handed to him on a platter from me and thats WHY i get called a nutjob since the truth hurts people around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weiler: Why Ronald Reagan Didn't Really Win the Cold War
> 
> Reagan Didn?t End the Cold War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan&#8217;s and Thatcher&#8217;s unremitting malice toward the communist state.
> 
> Crusader Retard will of course retreat and hide behind his video of Reagans Mr Gorbachev,tear down this wall speech and claim he won the debate of course.never fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i see crusader retard and none of the other reaganuts have any rebuttals to these facts that prove that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union.
Click to expand...


Sure. The same people who called Reagan Crazy for saying the USSR Was Evil and that he would defeat them are now saying "well, the USSR was going to collapse anyway!"

911 disinformation troll for the CIA


----------



## protectionist

Dante said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
Click to expand...


His biggest detractors still are Conservatives.  He damaged Conservatism immeasurably by creating this false new brand of "Conservatism" which I call Pseudo-Conservatism.  It says that small, weak govt is good.  Low taxes on the rich and low spending is good.  None of that was was the TRUE Consevatism before reagan came along.

  When Eisenhower (a TRUE Conservative) was in power, none of this Reaganist nonsense was in effect.  Then we had a big, strong govt. fueled by high taxes on the rich, and lots of spending on Conservative things (ie. CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture, building infrastructure, and defending Americans from harm).

  We got the interstate highway system built.  We built a strong military and law enforcement system.  We chased illegal aliens back to Mexico in Operation Wetback in 1954 (only to have Reagan give them amnesty).  Same sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states, and queers were vetted from teaching positions (Reagan supported the infamous Briggs Initiative in 1978).  Eisenhower kept foreign adversaries in line, including giving Kennedy advice in the 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis, while Reagan ran from Muslim terrorists in Lebanon, after they killed 200+ US Marines.

  Worst of all, Reagan's new (and weird) small govt concept stopped tax $$ from getting to the federal govt where they were needed for Conservative functions like the INS, FBI, CIA, DEA, federal prison system, etc.


----------



## Dante

protectionist said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His biggest detractors still are Conservatives.  He damaged Conservatism immeasurably by creating this false new brand of "Conservatism" which I call Pseudo-Conservatism.  It says that small, weak govt is good.  Low taxes on the rich and low spending is good.  None of that was was the TRUE Consevatism before reagan came along.
> 
> When Eisenhower (a TRUE Conservative) was in power, none of this Reaganist nonsense was in effect.  Then we had a big, strong govt. fueled by high taxes on the rich, and lots of spending on Conservative things (ie. CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture, building infrastructure, and defending Americans from harm).
> 
> We got the interstate highway system built.  We built a strong military and law enforcement system.  We chased illegal aliens back to Mexico in Operation Wetback in 1954 (only to have Reagan give them amnesty).  Same sex marriage was illegal in all 50 states, and queers were vetted from teaching positions (Reagan supported the infamous Briggs Initiative in 1978).  Eisenhower kept foreign adversaries in line, including giving Kennedy advice in the 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis, while Reagan ran form Muslim terrorists in Lebanon after they killed 200+ US Marines.
> 
> Worst of all, Reagan's new (and weird) small govt concept stopped tax $$ from getting to the federal govt where they were needed for Conservative functions like the INS, FBI, CIA, DEA, federal prison system, etc.
Click to expand...

I guess conservatism and conservatives have got to battle this out


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> so much for the fairy tales and hot air spun by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard that Reagan ended the cold war.as always,Crusader Retard gets his ass handed to him on a platter from me and thats WHY i get called a nutjob since the truth hurts people around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weiler: Why Ronald Reagan Didn't Really Win the Cold War
> 
> Reagan Didn?t End the Cold War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan&#8217;s and Thatcher&#8217;s unremitting malice toward the communist state.
> 
> Crusader Retard will of course retreat and hide behind his video of Reagans Mr Gorbachev,tear down this wall speech and claim he won the debate of course.never fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i see crusader retard and none of the other reaganuts have any rebuttals to these facts that prove that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union.
Click to expand...


and like clockwork,they also dont have any answers for these facts about reagan either true to form.so predicatable.

Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans

Here is the REAL Ronald Reagan exposed.

&#8226;Liar 
&#8226;Thief 
&#8226;Mass murderer 
&#8226;Supporter of abortion 
&#8226;War criminal 
&#8226; 
&#8226; 

&#8226;Destroyer of freedom 
&#8226;Traitor of the American people 
&#8226;Corporate whore 
&#8226;Destroyer of the environment 
&#8226;Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "


----------



## LA RAM FAN

hunarcy said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While, of course, Democrats controlled the House and controlled the budgetary process.
> 
> Keep trying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the first six years of the Reagan presidency (1981-87) The Republicans controlled the Senate
> 
> One house of the US Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, as I said, Democrats controlled the House and controlled the budgetary process.  Thanks for acknowledging I was correct.
Click to expand...


I love how the reaganuts-other than crusader retard-he just ignores them and changes the subject, when confronted with overwhelming facts about the corruption that went on in the reagan white house,when they are confronted by pesky facts, they try and shift the blame to somone else-congress for Reagans policys.never fails.blame congress for reagans distructive policys.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

It's not like I actually lived through the Reagan Years and formed my own opinions, ya know. I need 9/11 and Dante to interpret it for me.

Tell me more about what an awesome guy Gorby was! 
__________________
yeah you were off on a deserted island that whole time during those years.

yeah you get  taken to school by us.only you wont go to school because you wont read bunchs book where he uses ACTUAL sources from the 80's to back up his facts.

you run off with your tail between your legs everytime i show a video TAKEN FROM THE 80'S that talks about reagans policys killing the poor and middle class familys.but we shouldnt listen to actual sources from the 80's at that time,just to your meltdowns and rants you have when cornered.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> so much for the fairy tales and hot air spun by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard that Reagan ended the cold war.as always,Crusader Retard gets his ass handed to him on a platter from me and thats WHY i get called a nutjob since the truth hurts people around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weiler: Why Ronald Reagan Didn't Really Win the Cold War
> 
> Reagan Didn?t End the Cold War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagans and Thatchers unremitting malice toward the communist state.
> 
> Crusader Retard will of course retreat and hide behind his video of Reagans Mr Gorbachev,tear down this wall speech and claim he won the debate of course.never fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i see crusader retard and none of the other reaganuts have any rebuttals to these facts that prove that reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the soviet union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. The same people who called Reagan Crazy for saying the USSR Was Evil and that he would defeat them are now saying "well, the USSR was going to collapse anyway!"
> 
> 911 disinformation troll for the CIA
Click to expand...


YOU are the only disinformation agent troll for the CIA posting here.

you prove that the way you cowardly evade facts and change the subject when cornered retreating to reagans tear down the wqall speech.

you still have NOT refuted my facts that it didn't matter who was president,that it was gorby behind the collapse of the USSR and reagan had NOTHING to do with it.

Im not the one evading and failing to address facts or cowardly running away from videos and refusing to read a book.YOU are,thats what CIA disinformation agent trolls do.you have been called out with your lies troll.


oh and CIA disinformation agent trolls dont go around saying the CIA killed JFK or were behind 9/11 dumbfuck idiot.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan never wanted Bush as his VP. He had to take him
> 
> *I can't say anymore or someone will turn me in to their CIA friends*
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy.  You don't come off as nutty at all.
Click to expand...






hense WHY his user name  SHOULD  read CRUSADER RETARD.

If anyone ever had any doubt about Crusader Retard being a loon,that doubt should rest now because everybody that knows me,knows that I talk about how the CIA killed JFK all the time.

Like a CIA disinformation agent is REALLY going to come on here and say the CIA killed JFK.comedy gold.priceless.



I- a guy here who constantly talks about how the CIA killed JFK and was behind 9/11 as well,am all of a sudden a CIA disinformation agent according to crusader retard.priceless. comedy gold.whats else would anybody expect from Crusader Retard though?


thats almost as funny as his meltdowns he has when cornered with facts he cant refute  how reagan was the most corrupt president at the time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan pretended to get shot by a Bush family friend

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I should read more articles by people like Strobb Talbott he knows what really happened with gorby

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## Dot Com

looks like Raygun didn't git 'r dun.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Do people think that Russia is the USSR? That's sad

It's not surprising considering its from the 57 States crowd

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> I should read more articles by people like Strobb Talbott he knows what really happened with gorby
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China



as always,the resident troll at USMB changes the subject when cornered with these facts he cant refute,comedy gold.



Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans


Let us remember Reagan as he really was : 



&#8226;Liar 
&#8226;Thief 
&#8226;Mass murderer 
&#8226;Supporter of abortion 
&#8226;War criminal 
&#8226; 
&#8226; 

&#8226;Destroyer of freedom 
&#8226;Traitor of the American people 
&#8226;Corporate whore 
&#8226;Destroyer of the environment 
&#8226;Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "


as well as running off from the fact that Reagan fired Carters appointee stansfiled turner who cleaned up the CIA firing covert operaters and then replaced him with William casey who got the CIA back their dirty tricks again.I guess Reagans appointte casey-never said this either-that the internet invented it according to crusader retard.

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

William Casey

you would think the troll would give it up while he could.instead all he does is help prove my case FOR me,how evil and corrupt reagan was.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

I see the cat has got the tongue of the reaganuts knowing they are cornered by reagans atrocities against mankind.

still more corruption of ronnie exposed.

The Ronald Reagan Years - The Real Reagan Record


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate

Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate
> 
> Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat



as always,crusader retard has NO evidence that reagan brought down the USSR and has no evidence to counter all the facts listed in post #'s 1384 and 1385  of mine.

crusader retard sure is amusing,insisting "I" am the CIA disinformation agent. a guy who always says the CIA was behind 9/11 and the JFK assassination.comedy gold.



crusader retard ignores facts that Reagan delayed the end of the cold war by putting missiles in europe when Gorby wanted to end the old USSR way before then.


waiting for the next victem to try and address post # 1384 of mine cause crusader retard has folded and shown he cant counter those facts in that link how evil and corrupt reagan was.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

During the Clay Shaw trial, the only time anyone was ever tried for President kennedy's assassination, Bradley fled to California, then under Governor Ronald Reagan, who immediately blocked efforts to extradite him. On February 11, 1988, a group of high-ranking Freemasons gathered in the Oval Office of the White House to honor and be honored by President Reagan. He was made an honorary Scottish Rite Mason by the Grand Lodge of Washington D.C.  

By January 29, 1969, the day the Clay Shaw trial finally got under way, Garrison's case was already foundering.  His chief suspect, Ferrie, was dead and others had fled New Orleans and were safe in other states that refused to honor Garrison's extradition requests.

Governor John Connally, himself a victim in Dallas, refused to extradite Cuban leader Sergio Archaca-Smith, while California governor Ronald Reagan declined to allow extradition for one Edgar Eugene Bradley.



Treason

more of the REAL Ronald Reagan exposed.Just like then congressmen and future president Gerald Ford,Reagan also partipated in the JFK coverup and like Ford,ALSO got rewarded the office of the presidency for participating in the coverup.

Reagan got very well rewarded just like Ford for his treasonous crimes.


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


> I see the cat has got the tongue of the reaganuts knowing they are cornered by reagans atrocities against mankind.


Or they think you're too stupid to talk to since Reagan has been out of office for a while.


----------



## namvet

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


your a special kind of stupid


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> Do people think that Russia is the USSR? That's sad
> 
> It's not surprising considering its from the 57 States crowd
> 
> Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China



flacaltenn (an out 'n proud conservative) said that Pootie Poot was trying to reconstitute the ussr because of his occupation of the semi autonomous region of crimea (crimea was also a gift to Ukraine from- wait for it-  Russia )


----------



## Dot Com

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...

pos-repped & friends request sent


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate
> 
> Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat



The KGB wing of the CIA?  

YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right? 

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate
> 
> Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KGB wing of the CIA?
> 
> YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?
> 
> Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.
Click to expand...


^ that


----------



## Dot Com

'lest we forget:


----------



## Meathead

We all know that liberals are given to excessive whining, but one can only be flabbergasted by Reagan's success in that the whining continues to this day; 25 years after he was last president.

Now that's a incredible legacy befitting America's last great leader.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> We all know that liberals are given to excessive whining, but one can only be flabbergasted by Reagan's success in that the whining continues to this day; 25 years after he was last president.
> 
> Now that's a incredible legacy befitting America's last great leader.



Busted middle class
Tripled the national debt
Enabled Jihadist terrorists. 

We are still paying for Reagan's ineptitude.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that liberals are given to excessive whining, but one can only be flabbergasted by Reagan's success in that the whining continues to this day; 25 years after he was last president.
> 
> Now that's a incredible legacy befitting America's last great leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Busted middle class
> Tripled the national debt
> Enabled Jihadist terrorists.
> 
> We are still paying for Reagan's ineptitude.
Click to expand...




enormous expansion of the middle class
largest increase in the African American Middle class in history at that point
saved us from the Carter Depression
gave help to people fighting an army that killed ONE MILLION  Afghanis

still gives left-wing nutjobs Irritable Bowel Syndrome

oh and couldnt have spent a penny without the democrats that held the purse strings FOR ALL 8 REAGAN YEARS

 libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## bedowin62

if we're still paying for Reagan's ineptitude than we will never recover from the moron in the White House now


----------



## bedowin62

a silly person wrote:  ".......Reagan's ineptitude"


FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.

and today you can barely get a left-wing nutjob to tell you what "disastrous Bush policies Democrats DIDNT vote FOR, vote to CONTINUE.....ETC


YOU SEE THE THEME?

 left-wing losers trying to re-write their own history, whining about things Democrats supported  and


LYING TO THEMSELVES


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Meathead

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all know that liberals are given to excessive whining, but one can only be flabbergasted by Reagan's success in that the whining continues to this day; 25 years after he was last president.
> 
> Now that's a incredible legacy befitting America's last great leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Busted middle class
> Tripled the national debt
> Enabled Jihadist terrorists.
> 
> We are still paying for Reagan's ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enormous expansion of the middle class
> largest increase in the African American Middle class in history at that point
> saved us from the Carter Depression
> gave help to people fighting an army that killed ONE MILLION  Afghanis
> 
> still gives left-wing nutjobs Irritable Bowel Syndrome
> 
> oh and couldnt have spent a penny without the democrats that held the purse strings FOR ALL 8 REAGAN YEARS
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
Click to expand...

Don't forget he brought communism down to its knees and crippled the American left for a generation. Those are the kinds of  things a Stalinist like JoeB can never forgive.


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> enormous expansion of the middle class



Sorry, man, the middle class DECLINED under Reagan. 

Reagan's Real Legacy | The Nation



bedowin62 said:


> [
> 
> largest increase in the African American Middle class in history at that point


...




bedowin62 said:


> [
> saved us from the Carter Depression



When Carter left office, unemployment was at 7.4%.  Under reagan, it hit 11.3% before Reagan changed the counting rules to include people in the military as "employed".  When Reagan got re-elected, unemployment was at 7.2%.  Reagan intentionally continued Carter's policy of using unemployment to curb inflation. 




bedowin62 said:


> [
> gave help to people fighting an army that killed ONE MILLION  Afghanis



What killed 1 million Afghanis is that we kept pouring gasoline on that fire.  A fire that eventually turned around and burned us when those same "Freedom fighters" flew planes into buildings on 9/11.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> [Don't forget he brought communism down to its knees and crippled the American left for a generation. Those are the kinds of  things a Stalinist like JoeB can never forgive.



You know what, I think the Jihadists are a lot worse than the Communists were.  

The Communists weren't going to fly planes into buildings because they thought they were going to get to boink 72 virgins in the afterlife.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> enormous expansion of the middle class
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man, the middle class DECLINED under Reagan.
> 
> Reagan's Real Legacy | The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> largest increase in the African American Middle class in history at that point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> saved us from the Carter Depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Carter left office, unemployment was at 7.4%.  Under reagan, it hit 11.3% before Reagan changed the counting rules to include people in the military as "employed".  When Reagan got re-elected, unemployment was at 7.2%.  Reagan intentionally continued Carter's policy of using unemployment to curb inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> gave help to people fighting an army that killed ONE MILLION  Afghanis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What killed 1 million Afghanis is that we kept pouring gasoline on that fire.  A fire that eventually turned around and burned us when those same "Freedom fighters" flew planes into buildings on 9/11.
Click to expand...


you would tink you'd know when to shut up; but you seem to ENJOY embarrassing yourself; standing there with your faded Che Guevara t-shirt; waving your hammer and sickle glag


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> [
> 
> you would tink you'd know when to shut up; but you seem to ENJOY embarrassing yourself; standing there with your faded Che Guevara t-shirt; waving your hammer and sickle glag



Sorry, I think that the Cresent and black flag of Al Qaeda is a lot more serious. 

Guys Reagan called "Freedom Fighters" when they were killing Russians who were trying to teach girls how to read in Afghanistan.


----------



## bedowin62

sorry moron leftist; but there is no escaping it. if Reagan was a success you had nothing to do with it IN YOUR OPINION because you are clearly implying the other side opposed his policies; and if he is a failure there is the FACT OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD of support for Reagans policies; and so much support from the other side a whole new term was coined to describe them



you're a loser who lies to himself Joe


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> you would tink you'd know when to shut up; but you seem to ENJOY embarrassing yourself; standing there with your faded Che Guevara t-shirt; waving your hammer and sickle glag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I think that the Cresent and black flag of Al Qaeda is a lot more serious.
> 
> Guys Reagan called "Freedom Fighters" when they were killing Russians who were trying to teach girls how to read in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...



when they were killing russians they WERE FREEDOM fighters you dolt.

where is your brain idiot?
 so you are saying that cops who kill people are all killers? and our soldiers are murderers?

you're moronic moral relativism is embarrassing


----------



## bedowin62

russians killed a million Afghanis; just because they wanted little girls to read huh Joe?

 you get dumber by the post.

then again in left-wing circles mass slaughter IS acceptable when spreading left-wing ideology

what was it Mao said?


----------



## bedowin62

actually it was Stalin that said " the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"


there isnt anything leftists wont do to other people to "help" them


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> [
> 
> 
> when they were killing russians they WERE FREEDOM fighters you dolt.
> 
> where is your brain idiot?
> so you are saying that cops who kill people are all killers? and our soldiers are murderers?
> 
> you're moronic moral relativism is embarrassing



Uh, no, they were terrorists when they were killing Russians just like they were terrorists when they were killing Americans. 

They were fighting against the legally and internationally recognized Afghan government. Most of the guys fighting, like Bin Laden, weren't even Afghanis.  And we kept pouring gas on the fire by providing weapons, not realizing that these guys weren't just against "communism", they were against Christianity, democracy, western thought and modernity in general. 

And they are a much bigger threat to the US than the Communists ever were.


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> russians killed a million Afghanis; just because they wanted little girls to read huh Joe?
> 
> you get dumber by the post.
> 
> then again in left-wing circles mass slaughter IS acceptable when spreading left-wing ideology
> 
> what was it Mao said?



Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded. 

The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> russians killed a million Afghanis; just because they wanted little girls to read huh Joe?
> 
> you get dumber by the post.
> 
> then again in left-wing circles mass slaughter IS acceptable when spreading left-wing ideology
> 
> what was it Mao said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.
> 
> The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.
Click to expand...


ur right goober; we made Russia invade Afghanistan; and they should have just let their country be taken over; because russians only wanted the little girls to read

 what an idiot


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> russians killed a million Afghanis; just because they wanted little girls to read huh Joe?
> 
> you get dumber by the post.
> 
> then again in left-wing circles mass slaughter IS acceptable when spreading left-wing ideology
> 
> what was it Mao said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.
> 
> The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ur right goober; we made Russia invade Afghanistan; and they should have just let their country be taken over; because russians only wanted the little girls to read
> 
> what an idiot
Click to expand...


The Russians didn't "invade" Afghanistan.  

They were invited in by the legitimate government of Afghanistan.  This is what you clowns don't get.  

Legally, under international law, what they did was just as fine as when the US sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 (which by the way, was one of the justifications Bin Laden used to excuse 9/11.) 

So Legitimate GOvenrment invites in help from a larger country, Jihadists don't like that, they turn into terrorists and start murdering people.  

Describes the problem both we and the Russians had with Bin Laden.  

One man's "Terrorist" is anther man's "Freedom Fighter", but sometimes, they are the same man. 

Of course, The Russians must be looking at us in Afghanistan and laughing their asses off.


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> a silly person wrote:
> 
> 
> FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.



That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.


----------



## JoeB131

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a silly person wrote:
> 
> 
> FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.
Click to expand...


Bedwetter is kind of dumb.  

The Reagan Democrat was used to describe people like my parents, who voted for Democrats in local and state elections, but voted for Reagan.  

The question is, why did they vote for Reagan? 

Well, unfortunately, it was because the Democrats went all in with the counterculture in the 1970's.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a silly person wrote:
> 
> 
> FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bedwetter is kind of dumb.
> 
> The Reagan Democrat was used to describe people like my parents, who voted for Democrats in local and state elections, but voted for Reagan.
> 
> The question is, why did they vote for Reagan?
> 
> Well, unfortunately, it was because the Democrats went all in with the counterculture in the 1970's.
Click to expand...




you are simply an idiot; lying to himself. that is exactly what the term reagan Democrat meant. but IF it refers to democrats who voted for Reagan for President; the point remains the same; because the same people who  voted for reagan as president would vote for representatives who also agreed with reagan's policies


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a silly person wrote:
> 
> 
> FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.
Click to expand...


read it and weep leftard. then again you probably arent man enough to admit you're wrong:

Overview[edit]

The term can also be used to describe moderate Democrats who are more conservative than liberal on certain issues like national security and immigration. The term Reagan Democrat also refers to the vast sway that Reagan held over the House of Representatives during his presidency, even though the house had a Democratic majority during both of his terms.[1] The term also hearkens back to Richard Nixon's Silent Majority; a concept that Ronald Reagan himself used during his political campaigns in the 1970s.


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a silly person wrote:
> 
> 
> FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bedwetter is kind of dumb.
> 
> The Reagan Democrat was used to describe people like my parents, who voted for Democrats in local and state elections, but voted for Reagan.
> 
> The question is, why did they vote for Reagan?
> 
> Well, unfortunately, it was because the Democrats went all in with the counterculture in the 1970's.
Click to expand...


My take is that we were fed up with getting pushed around. The loss of Vietnam followed by hostage taking in Iran and getting pushed around by OPEC made us want someone who would stand up and fight. We needed and wanted a cowboy, a guy who could and would bring back some American pride. 

Folks who weren't around back in that era can't even imagine Rep's and Dem's respecting each other and putting the country ahead of the party. They comprimised and worked to get things done. When a Dem was elected by the people to be President the Rep's in congress respected that and respected that the people had spoken with their votes. Likewise, when a Repub was elected, like Reagan, the Dem's respected the wishs of the voters and supported the elected President whenever they could, which was very often. There were plenty of battles about legislation, but Reagan and later Bush 41 were given certain levels of respect and support by Democrats, just as previous Democratic Presidents were given respect and certain levels of support by Republican's in congress.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.
> 
> The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ur right goober; we made Russia invade Afghanistan; and they should have just let their country be taken over; because russians only wanted the little girls to read
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians didn't "invade" Afghanistan.
> 
> They were invited in by the legitimate government of Afghanistan.  This is what you clowns don't get.
> 
> Legally, under international law, what they did was just as fine as when the US sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 (which by the way, was one of the justifications Bin Laden used to excuse 9/11.)
> 
> So Legitimate GOvenrment invites in help from a larger country, Jihadists don't like that, they turn into terrorists and start murdering people.
> 
> Describes the problem both we and the Russians had with Bin Laden.
> 
> One man's "Terrorist" is anther man's "Freedom Fighter", but sometimes, they are the same man.
> 
> Of course, The Russians must be looking at us in Afghanistan and laughing their asses off.
Click to expand...




WHEN You're invited in; and that implies the people; not just the government; agreed with the "invitation"; yo ugenerally have to kill a million citizens who "invited" you

dolt


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.
> 
> The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ur right goober; we made Russia invade Afghanistan; and they should have just let their country be taken over; because russians only wanted the little girls to read
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians didn't "invade" Afghanistan.
> 
> They were invited in by the legitimate government of Afghanistan.  This is what you clowns don't get.
> 
> Legally, under international law, what they did was just as fine as when the US sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 (which by the way, was one of the justifications Bin Laden used to excuse 9/11.)
> 
> So Legitimate GOvenrment invites in help from a larger country, Jihadists don't like that, they turn into terrorists and start murdering people.
> 
> Describes the problem both we and the Russians had with Bin Laden.
> 
> One man's "Terrorist" is anther man's "Freedom Fighter", but sometimes, they are the same man.
> 
> Of course, The Russians must be looking at us in Afghanistan and laughing their asses off.
Click to expand...


the puppet government installed by soviets "invited" Russians in. you're simply an idiot twisting things to fit your narrative.


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a silly person wrote:
> 
> 
> FACT: so many Dems in Congress voted for Reagan's policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT was coined to describe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read it and weep leftard. then again you probably arent man enough to admit you're wrong:
> 
> Overview[edit]
> 
> The term can also be used......
Click to expand...


"The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes is irrelevant.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate
> 
> Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KGB wing of the CIA?
> 
> YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?
> 
> Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.
Click to expand...


Reagan called the USSR an evil empire, vowed to defeat them and he defeated them liberating hundreds of millions from your preferred political and economic system

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## Darkwind

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...

There has been revision of history, true.  Your post proves it.


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the term Reagan Democrat meant. Had nothing to do with how Congress voted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read it and weep leftard. then again you probably arent man enough to admit you're wrong:
> 
> Overview[edit]
> 
> The term can also be used......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes in irrelevant.
Click to expand...


crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there


----------



## Iceweasel

It's interesting that some think political commentators shape history.



> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA


Right. He warmed up to them. That's why we got into an arms race that bankrupted them, then sweet talked them into trusting us. Wow.


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read it and weep leftard. then again you probably arent man enough to admit you're wrong:
> 
> Overview[edit]
> 
> The term can also be used......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there
Click to expand...


You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The term can also be used..."means the definition has been expanded from it's original meaning. How convenient you decided not to include the entire definition or primary difinition from wherever your definition came from. Having actually voted for Reagan for his first term as a registered independent, I think I understand what the term meant as some of my Democrat friends voted for Reagan also and called themselves Reagan Democrats. The term was used to describe democrats who voted for Reagan. Whatever changes were made to the definition after that for spin, talking points or propaganda purposes in irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?
Click to expand...



FRAUDULENT?

 so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/

so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?

you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> crybaby; i did use the whole definition; when i explained that it could mean either Dems elected to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies; or Dems already in Congrss that voted for reagan's policies; and the democrat voters that sent them there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FRAUDULENT?
> 
> so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/
> 
> so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?
> 
> you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?
Click to expand...


The voters didn't vote for democrats to support Reagan. That is just a friggin rediculous idea.  If they wanted a House that would give unconditional support to Reagan they would have voted for Republicans to control the House. They kept the House in Democratic control to keep Reagan in balance and to force him to comprimise. The House remained in Democratic control the entire time he was President. Eventually the voters took control of the Senate away from Republicans and gave it to the Democrats.

If you stop your name calling and get some controll on you vanity you might actually learn something other than that spoon fed blabber you seem addicted to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressives believe that Eastern Europe was better off under Communism


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FRAUDULENT?
> 
> so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/
> 
> so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?
> 
> you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The voters didn't vote for democrats to support Reagan. That is just a friggin rediculous idea.  If they wanted a House that would give unconditional support to Reagan they would have voted for Republicans to control the House. They kept the House in Democratic control to keep Reagan in balance and to force him to comprimise. The House remained in Democratic control the entire time he was President. Eventually the voters took control of the Senate away from Republicans and gave it to the Democrats.
> 
> If you stop your name calling and get some controll on you vanity you might actually learn something other than that spoon fed blabber you seem addicted to.
Click to expand...


you're babbling and making a fool of yourself. now you are saying they didnt vote for their reps to support reagan; after telling me the ones already there that WE KNOW FOR FACT voted for reagan's policies werent what the term reagan democrat wasn meant to describe. it doesnt matter what YOU say they wanted to do; keep reagan "in balance" if they voted FOR his policies en masse. 

why dont you go cry somewhere?


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a distorted definition that is being twisted to make an inference that is fraudulent. So where did you get your definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FRAUDULENT?
> 
> so Democrats in Congress and the people in the electorate that sent those democrats to congress didnt support Reagans policies/
> 
> so Dems didnt control the purse strings all 8 reagan years?
> 
> you're a fool; lying to him or herself. why should i take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The voters didn't vote for democrats to support Reagan. That is just a friggin rediculous idea.  If they wanted a House that would give unconditional support to Reagan they would have voted for Republicans to control the House. They kept the House in Democratic control to keep Reagan in balance and to force him to comprimise. The House remained in Democratic control the entire time he was President. Eventually the voters took control of the Senate away from Republicans and gave it to the Democrats.
> 
> If you stop your name calling and get some controll on you vanity you might actually learn something other than that spoon fed blabber you seem addicted to.
Click to expand...




by the way genius; nobody spoon-fed me anything; i'm simply relying on FACTS AND LOGIC. so many Dems voted for reagan's policies that a term was coined to describe them. on the other hand if you're trying to say that they still voted for dems to "keep Reagan in balance" they didnt do a very good job of that then voted FOR ALL OF HIS POLICIES AND opposing very few of them. 
nothing  you say adds up; because you just want to re-write your own Party's history and whine about things you supported; let alone had the numbers to oppose


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the cat has got the tongue of the reaganuts knowing they are cornered by reagans atrocities against mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they think you're too stupid to talk to since Reagan has been out of office for a while.
Click to expand...


changing the subject and resorting to insults as always do the reaganut trolls.

Crusader Retard is the one here having meltdowns saying "I' am the CIA disinformation agent troll when its the CIA controlled media agents like Rush Limbaugh that spreads lies about him that he  eats up hook,line,and sinker.

Crusader Retards is the one obsessed with talking about Reagan being the greatest president ever,yet like you,changes the subject refusing to address facts when he is cornered with the truth having meltdowns.

you MIGHT consider telling HIM thats its nuts ignoring facts changing the subject, evading facts, then having meltdown temper tantrems telling lies about someone who is dead.

Im not the one here running away evading facts changing the subject about someone who has been in office and having meltdowns over it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate
> 
> Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KGB wing of the CIA?
> 
> YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?
> 
> Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.
Click to expand...




your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.

they play dodgeball with these facts about him.


----------



## bedowin62

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attempting to discredit Reagans role in bringing down the USSR is like believing Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter is historically accurate
> 
> Have Fun with your CIA Disinformation friends. I know the KGB Wing of the CIA was totally against Reagan's efforts, it's good to see they still haven't gotten over their defeat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KGB wing of the CIA?
> 
> YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?
> 
> Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.
> 
> they play dodgeball with these facts about him.
Click to expand...




u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
 serious


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KGB wing of the CIA?
> 
> YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?
> 
> Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.
> 
> they play dodgeball with these facts about him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
> serious
Click to expand...


the reaganuts are playing dodgeball here as always.


you might consider adding your fellow reagan worshipper to ignore like have with me  then since he has the same belief on that  as well.

He  DOES acknowledge how evil and corrupt the Bush family is unlike he does with reagan.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KGB wing of the CIA?
> 
> YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?
> 
> Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.
> 
> they play dodgeball with these facts about him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
> serious
Click to expand...


the reaganuts are playing dodgeball here as always.


you might consider adding your fellow reagan worshipper Crusader Retard to ignore like you have with me  then since he has the same belief on 9/11  as well.

He  DOES acknowledge how evil and corrupt the Bush family is unlike he does with reagan.

William Bunch the author of tearign down the myth -doesnt have my screenman,yet you cowards run away from the challenge of trying to refute his facts in his book  getting desperate bringing in some link about him trying to slander him instead of refuting his facts in his book.when cornered,slander the messenger instead of refuting the facts.


----------



## Meathead

bedowin62 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KGB wing of the CIA?
> 
> YOu know you are sounding like a paranoid loon, right?
> 
> Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as a Rooster has to do with the sunrise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your wasting your breath.Cant reason with a reagan worshipper.especially Crusader retard.
> 
> they play dodgeball with these facts about him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> u just cant take a nutjob with a screen name like "9-11 was an inside job"
> serious
Click to expand...

Amen! His pathology is boundless.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> if we're still paying for Reagan's ineptitude than we will never recover from the moron in the White House now



you want to bitch about the moron we have in office now,then your in the wrong thread and the wrong section as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> enormous expansion of the middle class
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man, the middle class DECLINED under Reagan.
> 
> Reagan's Real Legacy | The Nation
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> largest increase in the African American Middle class in history at that point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> saved us from the Carter Depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Carter left office, unemployment was at 7.4%.  Under reagan, it hit 11.3% before Reagan changed the counting rules to include people in the military as "employed".  When Reagan got re-elected, unemployment was at 7.2%.  Reagan intentionally continued Carter's policy of using unemployment to curb inflation.
> 
> 
> pesky facts about reagans pitiful performance as president are something they cover their ears to when they see them.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> russians killed a million Afghanis; just because they wanted little girls to read huh Joe?
> 
> you get dumber by the post.
> 
> then again in left-wing circles mass slaughter IS acceptable when spreading left-wing ideology
> 
> what was it Mao said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.
> 
> The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.
Click to expand...


 a war funded by the reagan administration is just a too scary fact for them to accept.


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


> changing the subject and resorting to insults as always do the reaganut trolls.


Reagan was the subject I was addressing and the point was why.


> Crusader Retard is the one here having meltdowns saying "I' am the CIA disinformation agent troll when its the CIA controlled media agents like Rush Limbaugh that spreads lies about him that he  eats up hook,line,and sinker.
> 
> Crusader Retards is the one obsessed with talking about Reagan being the greatest president ever,yet like you,changes the subject refusing to address facts when he is cornered with the truth having meltdowns.


I was there doing business then so I'll stick to reality, the economy was doing pretty well, especially compared to now.


> you MIGHT consider telling HIM thats its nuts ignoring facts changing the subject, evading facts, then having meltdown temper tantrems telling lies about someone who is dead.
> 
> Im not the one here running away evading facts changing the subject about someone who has been in office and having meltdowns over it.


I don't get the fascination with Reagan, or Bush for that matter, at this point. Historians do look favorable on the Gipper, unlike how it was back in the day. I suspect the opposite for Obama.


----------



## bedowin62

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> russians killed a million Afghanis; just because they wanted little girls to read huh Joe?
> 
> you get dumber by the post.
> 
> then again in left-wing circles mass slaughter IS acceptable when spreading left-wing ideology
> 
> what was it Mao said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.
> 
> The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a war funded by the reagan administration is just a too scary fact for them to accept.
Click to expand...




LOL morons like you keep invoking your boogemen
 cuz nobody on the planet every does anything unless a mean ol repub tells them to

what a complete idiot you are


----------



## Wry Catcher

whitehall said:


> Geez. what a crock of crap.



Another 'brilliant' retort, so typical of members of the right wing.  No facts, no evidence, in fact no argument to the contrary, thus retort doesn't quite define what must be characterized as nothing short of an idiot-gram.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> It's interesting that some think political commentators shape history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> 
> 
> Right. He warmed up to them. That's why we got into an arms race that bankrupted them, then sweet talked them into trusting us. Wow.
Click to expand...


as always,the reaganuts twist the facts that reagan bankrupted them when it was the soviets buildup of arms over several years prior that bankrupted them.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Dante said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't be a dilettante dante, google rangering is not very productive, its just spills ones ignorance to view....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taj, information can be power. Information that is powerful often elicits responses like yours and that of whitlesshall
> 
> dispute one _fact_ if you dare
> 
> someday you will be worthy enough to challenge in the Bull Ring. Until then, learn to earn credibility by disputing facts
Click to expand...


Spot on!  No facts ^^^ no evidence to dispute Dante's argument, simply another idiot-gram.  I wonder how many more I'll find, given I'm still on page one?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Meathead said:


> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!



He left in a cloud of controversy, Iran-Contra ring a bell?


----------



## bedowin62

Wry Catcher said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He left in a cloud of controversy, Iran-Contra ring a bell?
Click to expand...



yep sure does; the case where even the ACLU stepped in on the side of reagan's guys when the government overstepped their bounds

 and how many convictions?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> changing the subject and resorting to insults as always do the reaganut trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was the subject I was addressing and the point was why.
> 
> 
> 
> Crusader Retard is the one here having meltdowns saying "I' am the CIA disinformation agent troll when its the CIA controlled media agents like Rush Limbaugh that spreads lies about him that he  eats up hook,line,and sinker.
> 
> Crusader Retards is the one obsessed with talking about Reagan being the greatest president ever,yet like you,changes the subject refusing to address facts when he is cornered with the truth having meltdowns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was there doing business then so I'll stick to reality, the economy was doing pretty well, especially compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> you MIGHT consider telling HIM thats its nuts ignoring facts changing the subject, evading facts, then having meltdown temper tantrems telling lies about someone who is dead.
> 
> Im not the one here running away evading facts changing the subject about someone who has been in office and having meltdowns over it.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get the fascination with Reagan, or Bush for that matter, at this point. Historians do look favorable on the Gipper, unlike how it was back in the day. I suspect the opposite for Obama.
Click to expand...


when i say change the subject,you guys evade facts about his corruption  then refusing to try and counter them,such as refusing to read Bunchs book and discuss it,then  get into name calling when your cornered,you debate like that in a debating hall,you get automatically disqualified

the economy was doing pretty well THEN compared to now no doubt but Reagan betrayed the lower and middle class familys.

tell all the people that i ran into back then who talked to me about Reagans policys costing them their jobs that he did not betray them.they would be glad to hear that from you im sure.


----------



## Meathead

Wry Catcher said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He left in a cloud of controversy, Iran-Contra ring a bell?
Click to expand...

He left office with a stature unseen since George Washington himself. He will probably be the last great American president.


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that some think political commentators shape history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> 
> 
> Right. He warmed up to them. That's why we got into an arms race that bankrupted them, then sweet talked them into trusting us. Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as always,the reaganuts twist the facts that reagan bankrupted them when it was the soviets buildup of arms over several years prior that bankrupted them.
Click to expand...

They were worried about Carter? I don't think so.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the only reason why a million Afghanis died was because there was a war we funded.
> 
> The Pakistanis sold us a bill of goods about how these guys they were arming were "Freedom Fighters" and we bought it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a war funded by the reagan administration is just a too scary fact for them to accept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL morons like you keep invoking your boogemen
> cuz nobody on the planet every does anything unless a mean ol repub tells them to
> 
> what a complete idiot you are
Click to expand...

your the brainwashed idiot that has been taken in worshipping the lies  of people like CIA mouthpieces Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that some think political commentators shape history.
> 
> Right. He warmed up to them. That's why we got into an arms race that bankrupted them, then sweet talked them into trusting us. Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as always,the reaganuts twist the facts that reagan bankrupted them when it was the soviets buildup of arms over several years prior that bankrupted them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were worried about Carter? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


they didnt stop their arms buildup when carter all of a sudden came into office.


----------



## bedowin62

9/11 inside job said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> a war funded by the reagan administration is just a too scary fact for them to accept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL morons like you keep invoking your boogemen
> cuz nobody on the planet every does anything unless a mean ol repub tells them to
> 
> what a complete idiot you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your the brainwashed idiot that has been taken in worshipping the lies  of people like CIA mouthpieces Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...


SURE DORK' but it's time for your group therapy on overuse of smiles

idiot


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> changing the subject and resorting to insults as always do the reaganut trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was the subject I was addressing and the point was why.
> I was there doing business then so I'll stick to reality, the economy was doing pretty well, especially compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> you MIGHT consider telling HIM thats its nuts ignoring facts changing the subject, evading facts, then having meltdown temper tantrems telling lies about someone who is dead.
> 
> Im not the one here running away evading facts changing the subject about someone who has been in office and having meltdowns over it.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't get the fascination with Reagan, or Bush for that matter, at this point. Historians do look favorable on the Gipper, unlike how it was back in the day. I suspect the opposite for Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when i say change the subject,you guys evade facts about his corruption  then refusing to try and counter them,such as refusing to read Bunchs book and discuss it,then  get into name calling when your cornered,you debate like that in a debating hall,you get automatically disqualified
> 
> the economy was doing pretty well THEN compared to now no doubt but Reagan betrayed the lower and middle class familys.
> 
> tell all the people that i ran into back then who talked to me about Reagans policys costing them their jobs that he did not betray them.they would be glad to hear that from you im sure.
Click to expand...


In fact,Reagan did what Carter did not,Betray the low and middle class familys making them more poor and only helping the rich. and I'll be posting facts that others have posted that prove the econony was better under carter than reagan.


----------



## bedowin62

9/11 inside job said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> a war funded by the reagan administration is just a too scary fact for them to accept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL morons like you keep invoking your boogemen
> cuz nobody on the planet every does anything unless a mean ol repub tells them to
> 
> what a complete idiot you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your the brainwashed idiot that has been taken in worshipping the lies  of people like CIA mouthpieces Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...


rush is a CIA "mouthpiece"?

 really leftard?

 and the dogs playing poker on the wall are telling you to jump out the window


OBEY THE DOGS!!


----------



## bedowin62

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> reagan was the subject i was addressing and the point was why.
> I was there doing business then so i'll stick to reality, the economy was doing pretty well, especially compared to now.
> I don't get the fascination with reagan, or bush for that matter, at this point. Historians do look favorable on the gipper, unlike how it was back in the day. I suspect the opposite for obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when i say change the subject,you guys evade facts about his corruption  then refusing to try and counter them,such as refusing to read bunchs book and discuss it,then  get into name calling when your cornered,you debate like that in a debating hall,you get automatically disqualified
> 
> The economy was doing pretty well then compared to now no doubt but reagan betrayed the lower and middle class familys.
> 
> Tell all the people that i ran into back then who talked to me about reagans policys costing them their jobs that he did not betray them.they would be glad to hear that from you im sure.:d
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in fact,reagan did what carter did not,betray the low and middle class familys making them more poor and only helping the rich.:d and i'll be posting facts that others have posted that prove the econony was better under carter than reagan.
Click to expand...


you cant ignore anything that isnt brainwashing you moron


----------



## Truthmatters

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that some think political commentators shape history.
> 
> Right. He warmed up to them. That's why we got into an arms race that bankrupted them, then sweet talked them into trusting us. Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as always,the reaganuts twist the facts that reagan bankrupted them when it was the soviets buildup of arms over several years prior that bankrupted them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were worried about Carter? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


their efforts in Afganistan bankrupted them


----------



## Truthmatters

Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) formally ceased to exist on 26 December 1991





The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989.


----------



## bedowin62

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1 mommy mommy my community activist can never measure up to reagan!


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He left in a cloud of controversy, Iran-Contra ring a bell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He left office with a stature unseen since George Washington himself. He will probably be the last great American president.
Click to expand...


Ya right. The cloud I remember is the cloud of 270 people, including 189 Americans, many of them young students. They formed a cloud of bodies, dead and alive, falling over Lockerbie along with the blown in half wreckage of Pan Am 103. A Christmas present to Ronald Reagan from Momar Qaddafi for Reagan's lame air strike that failed to do anything but kill Qaddifi's infant daughter and cause Momor to make a blood oath to obtain retribution and vengence on the stupid old US President that thought he could get away with such a crime against an Arab terrorist leader without paying a price. Well, he did't pay the price perhaps. The folks falling out of the sky paid it.
Happend a month before he left office.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

here we go.proof the ecomony was worse off under Reagan than it was under Carter.

FOR THE LEFT: Reagan's Betrayal of the Middle Class Comes to Full Fruition

How the GOP betrayed the White American Middle Class? | YAHOO THOM

Consortiumnews.com

Robert L. Borosage: The Reagan Ruins

BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism

http://www.dickmeister.com/id89.html

MYTH
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm

friends post here post # 523 nails it as well.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-35.html


----------



## bedowin62

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!1 mommy mommy

why cant i think for myself?

 is it because i'm a brainwashed o-bot?


----------



## bedowin62

look at this parade of pathetic left-wing rejects; paranoid self-deceivers and losers in deep denial of PROGRESSIVE FAILURE


----------



## bedowin62

ONE IS A TRUTHER; the other just a rabid o-bot

both complete idiots


----------



## bedowin62

here we go again; left-wing nutjobs mentally masturating in public telling themselves lies


----------



## Truthmatters

Soviet personnel strengths and casualties





 Soviet soldiers return from Afghanistan, October 1986




 Afghans commemorating Mujahideen Victory Day.
Between December 25, 1979, and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000[citation needed] soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000&#8211;104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units, and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub-units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28, and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 312 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.

Of the troops deployed, 53,753 were wounded, injured, or sustained concussion and 415,932 fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever, and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed, or contracting serious diseases, 10,751 men, were left disabled.[128]

Material losses were as follows:[17]{not in the source given}
451 aircraft (includes 333 helicopters)
147 tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery guns and mortars
11,369 cargo and fuel tanker trucks.


----------



## Truthmatters

childish insults up against facts?

see why your party is dying


----------



## hunarcy

9/11 inside job said:


> here we go.proof the ecomony was worse off under Reagan than it was under Carter.
> 
> FOR THE LEFT: Reagan's Betrayal of the Middle Class Comes to Full Fruition
> 
> How the GOP betrayed the White American Middle Class? | YAHOO THOM
> 
> Consortiumnews.com
> 
> Robert L. Borosage: The Reagan Ruins



Wow, all that copying of a left leaning blog provides SUCH convincing proof.


----------



## Truthmatters

You didn't read any of it huh


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> here we go again; left-wing nutjobs mentally masturating in public telling themselves lies



Is it a lie that 250 Marines were killed in the Lebanon barracks bombing while being protected by sentries and security under orders to carry unloaded weapons.
Reagan, commander in chief. Orders, no ammunition allowed or issued for weapons. Truck spotted by security charging towards barracks. No action taken, security carrying unloaded weapons.
Where is the lie?
At least they had loaded weapons at Benghazi.


----------



## Iceweasel

hunarcy said:


> Wow, all that copying of a left leaning blog provides SUCH convincing proof.


Leftists op-ed articles are cold hard facts. I wonder if he reads any of them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

here is a poster that understands the truth about reagan and this wasnt my post from the past either.

No, dumbass. All Reagan did was spend us into bankruptcy and destroy the middle class. 

The USSR Fell because 300 million Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do. 

It was no more caused by Reagan than the Fall of the British Empire. That happened when a bunch of Indians and Arabs and Africans all told the King to get Bent.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> here we go.proof the ecomony was worse off under Reagan than it was under Carter.
> 
> FOR THE LEFT: Reagan's Betrayal of the Middle Class Comes to Full Fruition
> 
> How the GOP betrayed the White American Middle Class? | YAHOO THOM
> 
> Consortiumnews.com
> 
> Robert L. Borosage: The Reagan Ruins
> 
> BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism
> 
> Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister
> 
> MYTH
> Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it
> 
> friends post here post # 523 nails it as well.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-35.html



there it is in black and white.the proof in the pudding that the economy was far worse under reagan than it was on Carter.Carter did not betray the lower and middle class familys like Reagan did.

oh and for all the reagnuts on here too lazy to read through those links,here is a video with ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES back from the 1980's from the LAMESTREAM MEDIA you guys worship as the truth,even THEY reported back then in the 80's how Reagans policys betrayed the lower and middle class familys. dont know why i bother posting this video since none of you reaganuts will watch it the way your so much in denial only seeing what you WANT to see.

thats why none of you will read Bunchs book TEARING DOWN THE MYTH since he uses actual media sources from the 80's in his book. instead,all you trolls do,is attack the messenger-me and call me names knowing your cornered and have lost the debate.

here is that video FROM THE 80'S.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKi04yijjS4]RIG-anomics: GOP Ignores Ronald Reagan's Trickle-Down Economics Failures - YouTube[/ame]

Oh and another fact you trolls ignored previously,Carter actually tried to do something about the corrupt CIA that runs this country now. what did reagan do? He fired carters appointee Stansfield Turner who cleaned up and reformed the CIA and brought in william casey and who got the CIA back to their evil ways again with covert operations that are still going on now.


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


>


Debt did go up, mostly because of military spending, that isn't in dispute. But the GDP went up too with the thriving economy (unlike today). And like I said, I was there. I believe me over left wing whacko sites.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all that copying of a left leaning blog provides SUCH convincing proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists op-ed articles are cold hard facts. I wonder if he reads any of them.
Click to expand...



guess what you two frady cat deniars?

 those blogs are backed up by ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES FROM THE 1980'S REPORTERS reporting BACK THEN IN THE 80'S how reagans policys betrayed america as evidenced in that video of mine in my last post.


As always,you reaganuts worshippers,get your asses handed to you on a platter and taken to school here by that video.you shoot the messenger cause the truth hurts ignoring the fact those are not MY words,those are words reporter back from the 80'Sfrom reporters back then how his policys betrayed the lower and middle class familys.

shoot the messenger when the truth hurts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debt did go up, mostly because of military spending, that isn't in dispute. But the GDP went up too with the thriving economy (unlike today). And like I said, I was there. I believe me over left wing whacko sites.
Click to expand...


thriving economy?thats why so many lower and middle class familys were betrayed by reagan and lost their jobs because of his thriving economy.


----------



## bedowin62

another laughable post from mentally-ill truther nutjob


30-yard penalty for overuse of smilies

idiot


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


> those blogs are backed up by ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES FROM THE 1980'S REPORTERS reporting BACK THEN IN THE 80'S how reagans policys betrayed america as evidenced in that video of mine in my last post.


Yes, and I said he was treated very unfairly by the news media. Probably worse than Bush.


> thriving economy?thats why so many lower and middle class familys were betrayed by reagan and lost their jobs because of his thriving economy.



Why Obama can't match the Reagan recovery - May. 4, 2012
After all, that's the playbook Ronald Reagan used to steamroll Walter Mondale in 1984. Reagan was able to capture a whopping 525 electoral votes, in part because the economy was rapidly climbing out of a recession as voters went to the polls.

Even worse, the portion of the adult population participating in the job market is now at its lowest level since 1981.

In April 1984, the economy added 363,000 jobs. In the first four months of 1984, employment growth hit 1,564,000. This year, the first four months have brought about half that amount.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Iceweasel said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all that copying of a left leaning blog provides SUCH convincing proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists op-ed articles are cold hard facts. I wonder if he reads any of them.
Click to expand...


Some of us were adults, alive and alert for the Reagan and Carter years as well as the Nixon / Ford Administrations.  So efforts by the far right members who operate like Winston Smith to revise history are known by us to be liars.

Keep that in mind when you decide to thank those Ministers of Truth who try suggest the economic problems during Carter's term where a product of his administration.  Stagflation and the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) programs were the legacy Carter received from the Republican Administration.


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> another laughable post from mentally-ill truther nutjob
> 
> 
> 30-yard penalty for overuse of smilies
> 
> idiot



People aren't laughing at folks you call names. They laugh at you and others who can only call names and make foolish attempts to sound like they know something. People can check out links and check the sources for themselves. Why do you think they need your comments about the sources? It's not as though you counter the sources with anything. I give easy to search clues. Marines barracks bombing or Lockerbie. Don't need links. A simple google will get the interested person in touch with all the links they need or want. 
Reagan will never get a Memorial in D.C. the way Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Kennedy have. His administration was to corrupt. As years go be he becomes less relevant and viewed more and more like a bumbling fool who ruined far more that he built. His mishandling of terrorisn, Iran contra and his support of the mujihadeen in Afghanistan helped give rise to  the terrorism of the 90's and early 21rst Century. That is his long lasting legacy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> here is a poster that understands the truth about reagan and this wasnt my post from the past either.
> 
> No, dumbass. All Reagan did was spend us into bankruptcy and destroy the middle class.
> 
> The USSR Fell because 300 million Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do.
> 
> It was no more caused by Reagan than the Fall of the British Empire. That happened when a bunch of Indians and Arabs and Africans all told the King to get Bent.



What a dope.

Seriously, stop reading from the CIA Talking Points


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthmatters said:


> Soviet personnel strengths and casualties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet soldiers return from Afghanistan, October 1986
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghans commemorating Mujahideen Victory Day.
> Between December 25, 1979, and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000[citation needed] soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.
> 
> The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units, and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub-units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28, and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 312 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.
> 
> Of the troops deployed, 53,753 were wounded, injured, or sustained concussion and 415,932 fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever, and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed, or contracting serious diseases, 10,751 men, were left disabled.[128]
> 
> Material losses were as follows:[17]{not in the source given}
> 451 aircraft (includes 333 helicopters)
> 147 tanks
> 1,314 IFV/APCs
> 433 artillery guns and mortars
> 11,369 cargo and fuel tanker trucks.



they died right after this war


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Gorby planned the collapse of the USSR right after Reagan gave his "Evil Empire" Speech

Yeah.

That's how it happened







Yeah, that's the ticket


----------



## Truthmatters

Mikhail Gorbachev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



15 March 1990 &#8211; 25 December 1991



he did not order the war you idiot


----------



## Truthmatters

see how facts always kick their idiot ideas to the curb


----------



## CrusaderFrank




----------



## Iceweasel

Wry Catcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all that copying of a left leaning blog provides SUCH convincing proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists op-ed articles are cold hard facts. I wonder if he reads any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of us were adults, alive and alert for the Reagan and Carter years as well as the Nixon / Ford Administrations.  So efforts by the far right members who operate like Winston Smith to revise history are known by us to be liars.
Click to expand...

Who's "us". Left wing nutjobs? Read the above post from CNN Money, hardly a right wing revisionist site. Plus, you guys are forgetting a main problem, people died before but they weren't "Bengazis". This was covered up right before an election, blaming it on the video hardly anyone saw. Susan Rice peddled it for all it was worth.


----------



## Iceweasel

CrusaderFrank said:


> Gorby planned the collapse of the USSR right after Reagan gave his "Evil Empire" Speech
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That's how it happened
> 
> Yeah, that's the ticket


I don't think even they believe it. They are running scared.


----------



## Iceweasel

Truthmatters said:


> see how facts always kick their idiot ideas to the curb


For some reason when I see your posts I think of a squeaky toy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Iceweasel said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gorby planned the collapse of the USSR right after Reagan gave his "Evil Empire" Speech
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That's how it happened
> 
> Yeah, that's the ticket
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think even they believe it. They are running scared.
Click to expand...


Oh, no. They believe it heart and soul. It's right out of "1984"


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gorby planned the collapse of the USSR right after Reagan gave his "Evil Empire" Speech
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> That's how it happened
> 
> Yeah, that's the ticket
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think even they believe it. They are running scared.
Click to expand...


hey  hypocrite troll,the only ones running scared are you cowardly chickens who keep cowardly running away from the challenge of reading Bunchs book TEARING DOWN THE MYTH and covering your eyes and ears to that video in my last post of actual newspeople back then from the 80's announcing how Reagans policys killed the economy.

thats why you chickenshits wont read bunch's book since he relies from actual sources from the 80's.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> see how facts always kick their idiot ideas to the curb
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason when I see your posts I think of a squeaky toy.
Click to expand...


thats because his posts prove your a brainwashed troll taken in by CIA mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> another laughable post from mentally-ill truther nutjob
> 
> 
> 30-yard penalty for overuse of smilies
> 
> idiot




classic,when cornered by facts,retreat and attack the messenger cause the truth hurts.
another cowardly troll who runs away from actual news sources from the 80's broacast from back then.cant refute the broadcast,so attack the messenger.comedy gold..


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Wry Catcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all that copying of a left leaning blog provides SUCH convincing proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists op-ed articles are cold hard facts. I wonder if he reads any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of us were adults, alive and alert for the Reagan and Carter years as well as the Nixon / Ford Administrations.  So efforts by the far right members who operate like Winston Smith to revise history are known by us to be liars.
> 
> Keep that in mind when you decide to thank those Ministers of Truth who try suggest the economic problems during Carter's term where a product of his administration.  Stagflation and the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) programs were the legacy Carter received from the Republican Administration.
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> see how facts always kick their idiot ideas to the curb
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason when I see your posts I think of a squeaky toy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats because his posts prove your a brainwashed troll taken in by CIA mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard.
Click to expand...


One of us posted interviews with a CIA agent and it wasn't me, Disinformation Boy


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, all that copying of a left leaning blog provides SUCH convincing proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists op-ed articles are cold hard facts. I wonder if he reads any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of us were adults, alive and alert for the Reagan and Carter years as well as the Nixon / Ford Administrations.  So efforts by the far right members who operate like Winston Smith to revise history are known by us to be liars.
> 
> Keep that in mind when you decide to thank those Ministers of Truth who try suggest the economic problems during Carter's term where a product of his administration.  Stagflation and the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) programs were the legacy Carter received from the Republican Administration.
Click to expand...


ahh poor whiny Liberals, they're always the one "inheriting" problems

Wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> another laughable post from mentally-ill truther nutjob
> 
> 
> 30-yard penalty for overuse of smilies
> 
> idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People aren't laughing at folks you call names. They laugh at you and others who can only call names and make foolish attempts to sound like they know something. People can check out links and check the sources for themselves. Why do you think they need your comments about the sources? It's not as though you counter the sources with anything. I give easy to search clues. Marines barracks bombing or Lockerbie. Don't need links. A simple google will get the interested person in touch with all the links they need or want.
> Reagan will never get a Memorial in D.C. the way Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Kennedy have. His administration was to corrupt. As years go be he becomes less relevant and viewed more and more like a bumbling fool who ruined far more that he built. His mishandling of terrorisn, Iran contra and his support of the mujihadeen in Afghanistan helped give rise to  the terrorism of the 90's and early 21rst Century. That is his long lasting legacy.
Click to expand...


so very true.somehow the media sources from the 80's being broadcast of actual facts are not good enough for them.

I have a suspecion your wrong that reagan wont get a memorial though.FDR was one evil bastard as well.a man who coddled with dictater and mass murderer Stalin.You've seen the pic of him,stalin and Churchill together I assume? that other evil bastard FDR got one,so dont be surprised if our corrupt government gives Ronnie one as well someday.Remember,he hasnt been dead that long,give them time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzv7MW35xJE



classic evasion by Crusader Retard.Notice how like clockwork,the troll retreats to this video when cornered by the facts in post # 1473 of mine?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL morons like you keep invoking your boogemen
> cuz nobody on the planet every does anything unless a mean ol repub tells them to
> 
> what a complete idiot you are
> 
> 
> 
> your the brainwashed idiot that has been taken in worshipping the lies  of people like CIA mouthpieces Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rush is a CIA "mouthpiece"?
> 
> really leftard?
> 
> and the dogs playing poker on the wall are telling you to jump out the window
> 
> 
> OBEY THE DOGS!!
Click to expand...


hey idiot.congress did an investigation into the CIA's activies in the 70's and discovered documents they have plants in the mainstream  media.plants that control the media today. walter kronkite was one,bill o'reily is one,pretty much all of them at fox news are.

why do you think your lover and fellow troll crusader retard keeps calling "ME"  a CIA disinformation agent specialist?

 of course you wont answer that since since i am calling out one of your own and your so close minded that you dont believe any of it?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> when i say change the subject,you guys evade facts about his corruption  then refusing to try and counter them,such as refusing to read bunchs book and discuss it,then  get into name calling when your cornered,you debate like that in a debating hall,you get automatically disqualified
> 
> The economy was doing pretty well then compared to now no doubt but reagan betrayed the lower and middle class familys.
> 
> Tell all the people that i ran into back then who talked to me about reagans policys costing them their jobs that he did not betray them.they would be glad to hear that from you im sure.:d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in fact,reagan did what carter did not,betray the low and middle class familys making them more poor and only helping the rich.:d and i'll be posting facts that others have posted that prove the econony was better under carter than reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you cant ignore anything that isnt brainwashing you moron
Click to expand...


except your a troll who only sees what he WANTS to see and cowardly keeps running off from challenges since you know they prove me right. who's the moron,the one refusing to address facts or the one who keeps calling people names because he is cornered and cant refute them and changes the subject everytime to something else about reagan?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> ONE IS A TRUTHER; the other just a rabid o-bot
> 
> both complete idiots



there you go with your childish insults again when cornered with facts you cant refute.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Truthmatters said:


> childish insults up against facts?
> 
> see why your party is dying



thats all the reagan worshippers s know how to do in debates when cornered by pesky facts they cant refute i see you have discovered.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Truthmatters said:


> You didn't read any of it huh



they NEVER do.they wont even read Bunchs book that Danta made a refernce to in his opening post since they know his book shreads to pieces the lies of the CIA controlled media.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here we go again; left-wing nutjobs mentally masturating in public telling themselves lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a lie that 250 Marines were killed in the Lebanon barracks bombing while being protected by sentries and security under orders to carry unloaded weapons.
> Reagan, commander in chief. Orders, no ammunition allowed or issued for weapons. Truck spotted by security charging towards barracks. No action taken, security carrying unloaded weapons.
> Where is the lie?
> At least they had loaded weapons at Benghazi.
Click to expand...


according to their warped drugged brains,yeah its a lie.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Which Poster Linked to a YouTube video of an interview with a CIA Agent?

a. 9/11
b. 9/11, or
c. 9/11?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debt did go up, mostly because of military spending, that isn't in dispute. But the GDP went up too with the thriving economy (unlike today). And like I said, I was there. I believe me over left wing whacko sites.
Click to expand...


problem was,you were there though,but like crusader retard,on a deserted island.

I was there was well and like i said before,I remember coming across many unemployed workers that lost their jobs thanks to reagan shipping them overseas hearing their comments-thanks to Regan,I no longer have a job anymore and that video of mine proves that i am telling the truth.

sorry but I'll take the words over people I came across back from the 80;s who told the truth they lost their jobs because of his policys and that media piece of actual sources over some internet denier any day of the year.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason when I see your posts I think of a squeaky toy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats because his posts prove your a brainwashed troll taken in by CIA mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of us posted interviews with a CIA agent and it wasn't me, Disinformation Boy
Click to expand...


yeah it came from one of the few FORMER agents that was honest that wanted nothing to do with that corrupt evil organization the CIA anymore.there are people out ther like that you know ?

oh and the other i posted was NOT from a CIA agent,it came from actual sources from the 80's.thanks for proving as always you only see what you WANT to see and refuse to look at actual sources from the 80's disinfo boy.

you always retreat to that reagan video when you are cornered by that video in post # 1473 of mine rachel whats her name not on the CIA payroll like Limbaugh is.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-99.html


----------



## hunarcy

9/11 inside job said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debt did go up, mostly because of military spending, that isn't in dispute. But the GDP went up too with the thriving economy (unlike today). And like I said, I was there. I believe me over left wing whacko sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> problem was,you were there though,but like crusader retard,on a deserted island.
> 
> I was there was well and like i said before,I remember coming across many unemployed workers that lost their jobs thanks to reagan shipping them overseas hearing their comments-thanks to Regan,I no longer have a job anymore and that video of mine proves that i am telling the truth.
> 
> sorry but I'll take the words over people I came across back from the 80;s who told the truth they lost their jobs because of his policys and that media piece of actual sources over some internet denier any day of the year.
Click to expand...


Your video was from the Rachel Maddow show, which is on MSNBC.   Since I KNOW Maddow lies about conservatives (based on her attacks about conservative Steve Stockman of Texas), I would have no problem learning that she lied about Reagan.   So, your video actually proves nothing except that you use biased sources that aren't the most reliable.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats because his posts prove your a brainwashed troll taken in by CIA mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Crusader Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of us posted interviews with a CIA agent and it wasn't me, Disinformation Boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah it came from one of the few FORMER agents that was honest that wanted nothing to do with that corrupt evil organization the CIA anymore.there are people out ther like that you know ?
> 
> oh and the other i posted was NOT from a CIA agent,it came from actual sources from the 80's.thanks for proving as always you only see what you WANT to see and refuse to look at actual sources from the 80's disinfo boy.
> 
> you always retreat to that reagan video when you are cornered by that video in post # 1473 of mine rachel whats her name not on the CIA payroll like Limbaugh is.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-99.html
Click to expand...


which is no surprise whatsoever since you ALWAYS retreat to that video of reagans speech everytime you are cornered by these facts. as well as the fact i have said over a HUNDRED times that reagan got the CIA back to its dirty tricks covert wars operations again when he got into office firing stansfiled turner and bringing in his boy  william casey

Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans


Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 
Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "


you trolls run away from this link t EVERYTIME knowing your cornered changing the subject bringing up something like that video of reagans speech to avoid admitting how reagan was so corrupt and betrayed the american people.

which is the norm for you all since you all are too cowardly to read Bunchs book since he ALSO goes by actual sources back then from the 1980's.

I can see its like talking to a brick wall tryintg to reason with you reagannut trolls,you wont watch videos,you wont read links that go against your views,you wont read books,no sense in going any further.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

hunarcy said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debt did go up, mostly because of military spending, that isn't in dispute. But the GDP went up too with the thriving economy (unlike today). And like I said, I was there. I believe me over left wing whacko sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> problem was,you were there though,but like crusader retard,on a deserted island.
> 
> I was there was well and like i said before,I remember coming across many unemployed workers that lost their jobs thanks to reagan shipping them overseas hearing their comments-thanks to Regan,I no longer have a job anymore and that video of mine proves that i am telling the truth.
> 
> sorry but I'll take the words over people I came across back from the 80;s who told the truth they lost their jobs because of his policys and that media piece of actual sources over some internet denier any day of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your video was from the Rachel Maddow show, which is on MSNBC.   Since I KNOW Maddow lies about conservatives (based on her attacks about conservative Steve Stockman of Texas), I would have no problem learning that she lied about Reagan.   So, your video actually proves nothing except that you use biased sources that aren't the most reliable.
Click to expand...


thanks for proving as always,you reaganut worshipperss only see what you WANT to see,you didnt even watch the video obviously.the fact thats all you spoke of was HER,  which you can easily see without clicking it on, not bothering to address the ACTUAL footage taken from the 80's back then when they reported BACK THEN his policys that betrayed the american people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> problem was,you were there though,but like crusader retard,on a deserted island.
> 
> I was there was well and like i said before,I remember coming across many unemployed workers that lost their jobs thanks to reagan shipping them overseas hearing their comments-thanks to Regan,I no longer have a job anymore and that video of mine proves that i am telling the truth.
> 
> sorry but I'll take the words over people I came across back from the 80;s who told the truth they lost their jobs because of his policys and that media piece of actual sources over some internet denier any day of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your video was from the Rachel Maddow show, which is on MSNBC.   Since I KNOW Maddow lies about conservatives (based on her attacks about conservative Steve Stockman of Texas), I would have no problem learning that she lied about Reagan.   So, your video actually proves nothing except that you use biased sources that aren't the most reliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for proving as always,you reaganut worshipperss only see what you WANT to see,you didnt even watch the video obviously.the fact thats all you spoke of was HER,  which you can easily see without clicking it on, not bothering to address the ACTUAL footage taken from the 80's back then when they reported BACK THEN his policys that betrayed the american people.
Click to expand...


you can claim all you want that Maddows lies and everything but she isnt lying here this time thime though,if you had bothered to watch the video which you just proved you did not,you would notice how the media reported BACK THEN  the FACTS of his policys which betrayed the small and middle class familys. your clearly in denial if you think reagans policys benifitted anybody else other than the rich and powerful as that video with footage bACK FROM THE 80'S proves.


somone got desperate earlier and said that the media was not friendly with reagan at all.they said that they were more vicious with Reagan that Bush.Yeah thats why they reported the truth that Bush had the lowest approval rating more than any other president leaving office. Bush jr i assume he had to be talking about. oh and they were very friendlly to Bush sr as well.they always are to the corrupt presidents like Reagan,Bush and Obama.

yeah they werent friendly with him,thats why they covered up what a mass murderer he was,how he funded terrorists who murdered women and children,and how they covered up what a traiter he was in the october surprise to the american people,and how they covered up that a few congressmen wanted to impeach reagan fr Iran contra, but got cowardly and said they did not do so because they did not want to put the american people through another watergate.but according to all you troll reagan worshippers,NONE of that ever happened though.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> here we go.proof the ecomony was worse off under Reagan than it was under Carter.
> 
> FOR THE LEFT: Reagan's Betrayal of the Middle Class Comes to Full Fruition
> 
> How the GOP betrayed the White American Middle Class? | YAHOO THOM
> 
> Consortiumnews.com
> 
> Robert L. Borosage: The Reagan Ruins
> 
> BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism
> 
> Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister
> 
> MYTH
> Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it
> 
> friends post here post # 523 nails it as well.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-35.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there it is in black and white.the proof in the pudding that the economy was far worse under reagan than it was on Carter.Carter did not betray the lower and middle class familys like Reagan did.
> 
> oh and for all the reagnuts on here too lazy to read through those links,here is a video with ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES back from the 1980's from the LAMESTREAM MEDIA you guys worship as the truth,even THEY reported back then in the 80's how Reagans policys betrayed the lower and middle class familys. dont know why i bother posting this video since none of you reaganuts will watch it the way your so much in denial only seeing what you WANT to see.
> 
> thats why none of you will read Bunchs book TEARING DOWN THE MYTH since he uses actual media sources from the 80's in his book. instead,all you trolls do,is attack the messenger-me and call me names knowing your cornered and have lost the debate.
> 
> here is that video FROM THE 80'S.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKi04yijjS4]RIG-anomics: GOP Ignores Ronald Reagan's Trickle-Down Economics Failures - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Oh and another fact you trolls ignored previously,Carter actually tried to do something about the corrupt CIA that runs this country now. what did reagan do? He fired carters appointee Stansfield Turner who cleaned up and reformed the CIA and brought in william casey and who got the CIA back to their evil ways again with covert operations that are still going on now.
Click to expand...


i knew this would be a waste of time posting it.the reagan worshippers ran way with their tail between their legs just like I said they would when confronted with this video. and as always.like clockwork of course,have no comments how reagan let the CIA  go back to their corrupt ways again "which is why the world is in the mess it is today because of them." how he got them back to their corrupt ways again firing carters appointee stansfiled turner who cleaned up the CIA and reformed them,then Reagan fires him bringing in willaim casey,who got them back to their covert operations and dirty secret wars again.never fails,they always turn tail and run everytime and just fire back with childish insults.


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


> I was there was well and like i said before,I remember coming across many unemployed workers that lost their jobs thanks to reagan shipping them overseas hearing their comments-thanks to Regan,I no longer have a job anymore and that video of mine proves that i am telling the truth.
> 
> sorry but I'll take the words over people I came across back from the 80;s who told the truth they lost their jobs because of his policys and that media piece of actual sources over some internet denier any day of the year.


Reagan didn't ship jobs overseas. You just repeat crap you heard. We had idiots back then too, libtards are not a new phenomenom.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> those blogs are backed up by ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES FROM THE 1980'S REPORTERS reporting BACK THEN IN THE 80'S how reagans policys betrayed america as evidenced in that video of mine in my last post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I said he was treated very unfairly by the news media. Probably worse than Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> thriving economy?thats why so many lower and middle class familys were betrayed by reagan and lost their jobs because of his thriving economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Obama can't match the Reagan recovery - May. 4, 2012
> After all, that's the playbook Ronald Reagan used to steamroll Walter Mondale in 1984. Reagan was able to capture a whopping 525 electoral votes, in part because the economy was rapidly climbing out of a recession as voters went to the polls.
> 
> Even worse, the portion of the adult population participating in the job market is now at its lowest level since 1981.
> 
> In April 1984, the economy added 363,000 jobs. In the first four months of 1984, employment growth hit 1,564,000. This year, the first four months have brought about half that amount.
Click to expand...


why is it that you all always go back to Obama when people start bashing Reagan?

I havent seen one poster come on here who has criticised reagan saying they like Obama or his policys. yeah compared to Obama,things looked pretty goodback then  compared to now.nobody has come on here and said otherwise.I dont think I have ever seen anybody on here that likes that clown in office.so why make comparisons to him?

Yes the economy added 363,000 jobs in april of 1984 and in the first four months of 1984 but that was an election year so Reagan had to make himself look good.

you failed to recognine however,that thanks to reagan shipping jobs overseas,unemployment was far worse the majority of reagans years than it was under carter as this graph proves.that only when he came into an election year,did he take any kind of action to try and make himself look good.lol

1977      6.5       7.1
1978      7.6       6.1
1979     11.3       5.9  < Second oil crisis
1980     13.5       7.2
1981     10.3       7.6
1982      6.2       9.7
1983      3.2       9.6
1984      4.3       7.5

Your forgetting as well that they were jobs that only benefitted the rich and how he shipped jobes overseas betraying the lower and middle class familys in the beginning.

contrary to your statement,the media protected reagan.they never reported how he betrayed the american people with the october surprise,Iran contra,his funding of terrorists groups that murdered hundreds of women and children oveseas,or how they failed to report back then that  there were some congressmen back then who wanted to impeach him because of Iran contra, but decided not to because they did not want to put americans through another watergate.yep thats a media that treated him very unfairly alright.

I would say he got treated very nice by the media same way Bush did. flip a coin on that one.could go either way,they both got treated with kids gloves.

the majority of his first term,we were no better off than we were with carter as these figures here show.

Matter of fact,polls back then showed most americans thought we were no better off that we were under carter when reagan left office.if you would bother reading Bunchs book who i have said MILLIONS of times on this thread,that he went by actual sources from back then in the 80's,if you had read his book,you would know that to be true.

mouth pieces like hot air rush limbaugh,glenn beck and others,have spoonfed the lies to the american people over decades and the american sheople  have swallowed them hook,line,and sinker over the years.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was there was well and like i said before,I remember coming across many unemployed workers that lost their jobs thanks to reagan shipping them overseas hearing their comments-thanks to Regan,I no longer have a job anymore and that video of mine proves that i am telling the truth.
> 
> sorry but I'll take the words over people I came across back from the 80;s who told the truth they lost their jobs because of his policys and that media piece of actual sources over some internet denier any day of the year.
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan didn't ship jobs overseas. You just repeat crap you heard. We had idiots back then too, libtards are not a new phenomenom.
Click to expand...


Oh really?

How did Reagan sent jobs overseas as people said he did? - Yahoo Answers




How did Reagan sent jobs overseas as people said he did? 
Tommy asked 10 months ago


Answer

 possibly because he did a major re-write of the tax code (Tax Reform Act of 1986) which increased corporate taxes. this might have been an incentive to corporations to shift operations overseas where profits could not be taxed. but honestly, i don't think Reagan is blamed for outsourcing jobs particularly.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/060309.html

Wall Street Greed

The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan&#8217;s tenure.

While he played the role of the nation&#8217;s kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the American people, using &#8220;wedge issues&#8221; to deepen grievances especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of &#8220;reverse discrimination&#8221; and &#8220;political correctness.&#8221;

Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called &#8220;Reagan Democrats&#8221, their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; &#8220;free trade&#8221; policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring

as i said before,I would love to see you reagan worshippers tell this to all the familys back then who lost their jobs because of him,i would love to watch and see if you had the guts to say that to their faces.


----------



## thanatos144

No one can take seriously a retard that actually thinks the attack on 9-11 was a inside job. 

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ur right goober; we made Russia invade Afghanistan; and they should have just let their country be taken over; because russians only wanted the little girls to read
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians didn't "invade" Afghanistan.
> 
> They were invited in by the legitimate government of Afghanistan.  This is what you clowns don't get.
> 
> Legally, under international law, what they did was just as fine as when the US sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 (which by the way, was one of the justifications Bin Laden used to excuse 9/11.)
> 
> So Legitimate GOvenrment invites in help from a larger country, Jihadists don't like that, they turn into terrorists and start murdering people.
> 
> Describes the problem both we and the Russians had with Bin Laden.
> 
> One man's "Terrorist" is anther man's "Freedom Fighter", but sometimes, they are the same man.
> 
> Of course, The Russians must be looking at us in Afghanistan and laughing their asses off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHEN You're invited in; and that implies the people; not just the government; agreed with the "invitation"; yo ugenerally have to kill a million citizens who "invited" you
> 
> dolt
Click to expand...


You think that we were invited in by the PEOPLE of Saudi Arabia? 

Or by the drunken Royals who were afraid Saddam Might take their jets and their hookers?  

Here's a hint of how "Welcome" we were in Saudi Arabia by it's people. 

15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Nationals.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians didn't "invade" Afghanistan.
> 
> They were invited in by the legitimate government of Afghanistan.  This is what you clowns don't get.
> 
> Legally, under international law, what they did was just as fine as when the US sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 (which by the way, was one of the justifications Bin Laden used to excuse 9/11.)
> 
> So Legitimate GOvenrment invites in help from a larger country, Jihadists don't like that, they turn into terrorists and start murdering people.
> 
> Describes the problem both we and the Russians had with Bin Laden.
> 
> One man's "Terrorist" is anther man's "Freedom Fighter", but sometimes, they are the same man.
> 
> Of course, The Russians must be looking at us in Afghanistan and laughing their asses off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN You're invited in; and that implies the people; not just the government; agreed with the "invitation"; yo ugenerally have to kill a million citizens who "invited" you
> 
> dolt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think that we were invited in by the PEOPLE of Saudi Arabia?
> 
> Or by the drunken Royals who were afraid Saddam Might take their jets and their hookers?
> 
> Here's a hint of how "Welcome" we were in Saudi Arabia by it's people.
> 
> 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Nationals.
Click to expand...


You hate this country and you bit a small fringe like those terrorists. 

tapatalk post


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN You're invited in; and that implies the people; not just the government; agreed with the "invitation"; yo ugenerally have to kill a million citizens who "invited" you
> 
> dolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that we were invited in by the PEOPLE of Saudi Arabia?
> 
> Or by the drunken Royals who were afraid Saddam Might take their jets and their hookers?
> 
> Here's a hint of how "Welcome" we were in Saudi Arabia by it's people.
> 
> 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hate this country and you bit a small fringe like those terrorists.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Unlike you, I served my country in uniform.  

But the reality is, the vast majority of the 17 million Saudi Citizens are resentful of Westerners and if they ever had an election, they'd elect crazy Jihadists who would cut off our Oil Fix in a heartbeat. 

This is just the reality of it. 

I care about this country.  I think it is foolish for us to expend blood and treasure in the Middle East in their arguments about which tribe with a banner is in charge. 

We shouldn't stick our dicks into a hornet's nest and then complain about getting stung.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think that we were invited in by the PEOPLE of Saudi Arabia?
> 
> Or by the drunken Royals who were afraid Saddam Might take their jets and their hookers?
> 
> Here's a hint of how "Welcome" we were in Saudi Arabia by it's people.
> 
> 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Nationals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hate this country and you bit a small fringe like those terrorists.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I served my country in uniform.
> 
> But the reality is, the vast majority of the 17 million Saudi Citizens are resentful of Westerners and if they ever had an election, they'd elect crazy Jihadists who would cut off our Oil Fix in a heartbeat.
> 
> This is just the reality of it.
> 
> I care about this country.  I think it is foolish for us to expend blood and treasure in the Middle East in their arguments about which tribe with a banner is in charge.
> 
> We shouldn't stick our dicks into a hornet's nest and then complain about getting stung.
Click to expand...


So I take it you're in favor of increased oil drilling here in the US...along with fracking for natural gas...the building of the Keystone pipeline and you would NEVER want to shut down all of our coal fired electrical plants, right Joe?  Yet Barack Obama has fought against all of these things that would make us energy independent.  How IS that?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> So I take it you're in favor of increased oil drilling here in the US...along with fracking for natural gas...the building of the Keystone pipeline and you would NEVER want to shut down all of our coal fired electrical plants, right Joe?  Yet Barack Obama has fought against all of these things that would make us energy independent.  How IS that?



as long as you are making wild assumptions, sure. 

I have no problem with Keystone if they change the route so a spill won't pollute the water.  That oil is going to be refined, we might as well be the ones doing it. 

Not too keen on the cutting edge technology of the 18th century, we should be l ooking at new technologies.  

Yes, I am for energy independence, but not at making the Koch Brothers richer and destroying the planet faster.  I'm funny like that.


----------



## Iceweasel

The fact that Reagan still wraps liberals around the axle is all the proof you need to know how great he was. It won't deflect anything away from the failed Obama administration. 

The more time they spend bashing Reagan, the less time they have polishing their favorite turd. But I can understand why the later is tiresome.


----------



## JoeB131

Iceweasel said:


> The fact that Reagan still wraps liberals around the axle is all the proof you need to know how great he was. It won't deflect anything away from the failed Obama administration.
> 
> The more time they spend bashing Reagan, the less time they have polishing their favorite turd. But I can understand why the later is tiresome.



The fact is, you guys have made up a mythical Reagan because the real one would be a RINO today.


----------



## chikenwing

Sure lets talk about history,and a dead guy,lots more fun than talking about the present,and future.

DC is broken from the top down,and people like the OP love to piss for distance over opinions,priceless!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dems hate Reagan for defeating Soviet Communism


----------



## Iceweasel

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dems hate Reagan for defeating Soviet Communism


Yep. And his legacy remains a threat to them today for similar reasons.


----------



## hunarcy

Iceweasel said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems hate Reagan for defeating Soviet Communism
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And his legacy remains a threat to them today for similar reasons.
Click to expand...


Well, Reagan DID commit the sin of backing away from the cutting edge technology from the 7th century (windmills) and allow us to become revitalized in the oil, gas and coal industries, which sparked a two decade boom.  Obviously the Left can't accept that thinking!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So I take it you're in favor of increased oil drilling here in the US...along with fracking for natural gas...the building of the Keystone pipeline and you would NEVER want to shut down all of our coal fired electrical plants, right Joe?  Yet Barack Obama has fought against all of these things that would make us energy independent.  How IS that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as long as you are making wild assumptions, sure.
> 
> I have no problem with Keystone if they change the route so a spill won't pollute the water.  That oil is going to be refined, we might as well be the ones doing it.
> 
> Not too keen on the cutting edge technology of the 18th century, we should be l ooking at new technologies.
> 
> Yes, I am for energy independence, but not at making the Koch Brothers richer and destroying the planet faster.  I'm funny like that.
Click to expand...


You probably didn't get the memo on this, Joe (which doesn't shock me since you're so generally oblivious to what's happening around you) but the route for the Keystone pipeline WAS changed...several times as a matter of fact but even though the US is literally COVERED with existing pipelines...no matter what route was proposed it wasn't acceptable to this Administration.

The "technology of the 18th century" that you turn your nose up at, provides us with the majority of our electricity, Joe.  New technologies provide an extremely small amount because of their enormous costs.  Unless you're ready to pay an electric bill that's double what you are now I wouldn't rush to ban fossil fuels.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Reagan still wraps liberals around the axle is all the proof you need to know how great he was. It won't deflect anything away from the failed Obama administration.
> 
> The more time they spend bashing Reagan, the less time they have polishing their favorite turd. But I can understand why the later is tiresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, you guys have made up a mythical Reagan because the real one would be a RINO today.
Click to expand...


That's a crock...the GOP has nominated moderates the last two Presidential elections despite attempts by a compliant main stream media to label those candidates and the GOP as "far right"...while at the same time the Democrats have nominated two of the most liberal candidates out there yet the main stream media NEVER refers to them as being "far left".


----------



## Oldstyle

If Reagan were running today he'd probably win the GOP nomination...the question would be whether he could survive the "gauntlet" of negative criticism that conservative's have to run these days in the main stream media.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Democrats believe that Eastern Europeans miss living under Soviet Communism.


----------



## 1751_Texan

Oldstyle said:


> If Reagan were running today he'd probably win the GOP nomination...the question would be whether he could survive the "gauntlet" of negative criticism that conservative's have to run these days in the main stream media.



Dont focus on GOP candidates savaging each other in the primaries...blame the media.

Where do you think those stories come from?


----------



## jasonnfree

Iceweasel said:


> The fact that Reagan still wraps liberals around the axle is all the proof you need to know how great he was. It won't deflect anything away from the failed Obama administration.
> 
> The more time they spend bashing Reagan, the less time they have polishing their favorite turd. But I can understand why the later is tiresome.



So history question.  How many convicted felons in the Reagan administration,  and how many convicted felons in the Obama administration?


----------



## Camp

jasonnfree said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Reagan still wraps liberals around the axle is all the proof you need to know how great he was. It won't deflect anything away from the failed Obama administration.
> 
> The more time they spend bashing Reagan, the less time they have polishing their favorite turd. But I can understand why the later is tiresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So history question.  How many convicted felons in the Reagan administration,  and how many convicted felons in the Obama administration?
Click to expand...


Lots of the Reagan gang were indicted on felonies but ended up with pleading down to misdemeanors. Example: Sec. of Interior James Watt, indicted on 41 felony counts related to collecting half million bucks in kick-backs. Pleaded down to a single misdemeanor for a  5 years probation sentence. Also, lots of pardons handed out. If you ask for indictments, convictions and pardons you can get to over 3 dozen crooks and crimminals in the Reagan adminstration, which is the all time historical record that gives the Reagan administration the most corrupt in American history title.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dems hate Reagan for defeating Soviet Communism



No, we hate him for demolishing the middle class and arming Jihadists. 

Soviet Communism did not fall because Reagan talked to a Wall.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats believe that Eastern Europeans miss living under Soviet Communism.



Some of them do, given the fact that some countries have voted the Communists or the parties that succeeded them back into power. 

Why do you think Putin is so popular in Russia?


----------



## regent

In the last rating of presidents by historians, Reagan was rated 18th best out of 43 presidents.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems hate Reagan for defeating Soviet Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we hate him for demolishing the middle class and arming Jihadists.
> 
> Soviet Communism did not fall because Reagan talked to a Wall.
Click to expand...


Crusader Reatard wont get off the crack he has been smoking to listen to any of that.He is so much strung up on the crack he has been smoking he doesnt get that.


----------



## Indeependent

regent said:


> In the last rating of presidents by historians, Reagan was rated 18th best out of 43 presidents.



25 sucked more?
Wow!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats believe that Eastern Europeans miss living under Soviet Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them do, given the fact that some countries have voted the Communists or the parties that succeeded them back into power.
> 
> Why do you think Putin is so popular in Russia?
Click to expand...


Not only is he popular in Russia,he is popular around the world unlike Reagan was or the current clown we have in office now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

chikenwing said:


> Sure lets talk about history,and a dead guy,lots more fun than talking about the present,and future.
> 
> DC is broken from the top down,and people like the OP love to piss for distance over opinions,priceless!



amazing how the reaganuts retreat to talking about the current clown in office we have when the truth about reagans corruption emerges.

It never occurs to them that this is the HISTORY section or the same posters that talk about reagans corruption talk about how Obama is corrupt as well in other sections.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> The fact is, you guys have made up a mythical Reagan


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that Reagan still wraps liberals around the axle is all the proof you need to know how great he was. It won't deflect anything away from the failed Obama administration.
> 
> The more time they spend bashing Reagan, the less time they have polishing their favorite turd. But I can understand why the later is tiresome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So history question.  How many convicted felons in the Reagan administration,  and how many convicted felons in the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of the Reagan gang were indicted on felonies but ended up with pleading down to misdemeanors. Example: Sec. of Interior James Watt, indicted on 41 felony counts related to collecting half million bucks in kick-backs. Pleaded down to a single misdemeanor for a  5 years probation sentence. Also, lots of pardons handed out. If you ask for indictments, convictions and pardons you can get to over 3 dozen crooks and crimminals in the Reagan adminstration, which is the all time historical record that gives the Reagan administration the most corrupt in American history title.
Click to expand...


thats why they wont read this link i have posted HUNDREDS of times that Im sure YOU have read since it talks about those pesky little facts.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html

Thats why they wont read Bunchs book either since it exposes members that served in congress back then who later in the 90's,told media sources they wanted to impeach reagan back then for his treason he committed with Iran Contra but they did not go ahead with it because they didnt want to put americans through another watergate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats believe that Eastern Europeans miss living under Soviet Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them do, given the fact that some countries have voted the Communists or the parties that succeeded them back into power.
> 
> Why do you think Putin is so popular in Russia?
Click to expand...


Because he ran the KGB and rigged election like he was a Chicago Alderman


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> here we go.proof the ecomony was worse off under Reagan than it was under Carter.
> 
> FOR THE LEFT: Reagan's Betrayal of the Middle Class Comes to Full Fruition
> 
> How the GOP betrayed the White American Middle Class? | YAHOO THOM
> 
> Consortiumnews.com
> 
> Robert L. Borosage: The Reagan Ruins
> 
> BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism
> 
> Ronald Reagan's War on Labor (Labor) by Dick Meister
> 
> MYTH
> Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it
> 
> friends post here post # 523 nails it as well.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-35.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there it is in black and white.the proof in the pudding that the economy was far worse under reagan than it was on Carter.Carter did not betray the lower and middle class familys like Reagan did.
> 
> oh and for all the reagnuts on here too lazy to read through those links,here is a video with ACTUAL NEWS SOURCES back from the 1980's from the LAMESTREAM MEDIA you guys worship as the truth,even THEY reported back then in the 80's how Reagans policys betrayed the lower and middle class familys. dont know why i bother posting this video since none of you reaganuts will watch it the way your so much in denial only seeing what you WANT to see.
> 
> thats why none of you will read Bunchs book TEARING DOWN THE MYTH since he uses actual media sources from the 80's in his book. instead,all you trolls do,is attack the messenger-me and call me names knowing your cornered and have lost the debate.
> 
> here is that video FROM THE 80'S.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKi04yijjS4]RIG-anomics: GOP Ignores Ronald Reagan's Trickle-Down Economics Failures - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Oh and another fact you trolls ignored previously,Carter actually tried to do something about the corrupt CIA that runs this country now. what did reagan do? He fired carters appointee Stansfield Turner who cleaned up and reformed the CIA and brought in william casey and who got the CIA back to their evil ways again with covert operations that are still going on now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i knew this would be a waste of time posting it.the reagan worshippers ran way with their tail between their legs just like I said they would when confronted with this video. and as always.like clockwork of course,have no comments how reagan let the CIA  go back to their corrupt ways again "which is why the world is in the mess it is today because of them." how he got them back to their corrupt ways again firing carters appointee stansfiled turner who cleaned up the CIA and reformed them,then Reagan fires him bringing in willaim casey,who got them back to their covert operations and dirty secret wars again.never fails,they always turn tail and run everytime and just fire back with childish insults.
Click to expand...


The reaganut worshippers wont watch this video of course just like they wont watch the one above  since it exposes what a traiter ronnie was to the american people with The october surprise delaying the release of the hostages so he could look like a hero and win the election from carter. i guess its not good enough either for them that Barbara Honneger, an aide for the Reagan white house,who wrote a book about it all called THE OCTOBER SURPRISE  coming acrosss documents of all of it,and is seen in the front cover photo with Bush and reagan,she of course isnt credible either.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So history question.  How many convicted felons in the Reagan administration,  and how many convicted felons in the Obama administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of the Reagan gang were indicted on felonies but ended up with pleading down to misdemeanors. Example: Sec. of Interior James Watt, indicted on 41 felony counts related to collecting half million bucks in kick-backs. Pleaded down to a single misdemeanor for a  5 years probation sentence. Also, lots of pardons handed out. If you ask for indictments, convictions and pardons you can get to over 3 dozen crooks and crimminals in the Reagan adminstration, which is the all time historical record that gives the Reagan administration the most corrupt in American history title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats why they wont read this link i have posted HUNDREDS of times that Im sure YOU have read since it talks about those pesky little facts.
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
> 
> Thats why they wont read Bunchs book either since it exposes members that served in congress back then who later in the 90's,told media sources they wanted to impeach reagan back then for his treason he committed with Iran Contra but they did not go ahead with it because they didnt want to put americans through another watergate.
Click to expand...


Liberals like Christ?

LOL

That's where I should get my information about Reagan.

Wow

Just Fucking Wow!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oh right.

Bush took that SR-71 to meet with Iran even though the CIA staged the Hostage taking in the first place and all Bush had to do was place a call to the Iran CIA Station Chief and Say "Let them go"


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats believe that Eastern Europeans miss living under Soviet Communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them do, given the fact that some countries have voted the Communists or the parties that succeeded them back into power.
> 
> Why do you think Putin is so popular in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because he ran the KGB and rigged election like he was a Chicago Alderman
Click to expand...


Right. Because you find it impossible to believe that people you don't like win fair elections. 

But what Bush did in 2000 was totally acceptable.


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> So history question.  How many convicted felons in the Reagan administration,  and how many convicted felons in the Obama administration?


We don't know yet. 


> Lots of the Reagan gang were indicted on felonies but ended up with pleading down to misdemeanors.


Indictments are not convictions and pleading down may not mean guilt either. 



regent said:


> In the last rating of presidents by historians, Reagan was rated 18th best out of 43 presidents.


What's your source? Mother Earth Jones? Wikipedia? You can pick historians to come up with any figures you want. However...

Lincoln Resumes Position as Americans' Top-Rated President
According to a Feb. 9-11, 2007, Gallup Poll, Lincoln is back at No. 1 with Americans. Still, he holds this position based on responses from a fairly small percentage of the public. Eighteen percent of Americans today name Lincoln as the greatest U.S. president. He is closely followed by Reagan, with 16%, and John F. Kennedy, with 14%. Bill Clinton (13%) and Franklin D. Roosevelt (9%) round out the top five.


----------



## Dot Com

the raygun myth must be busted. (It already has but the raygun fluffers just don't want to admit it  )
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Right-Wing/dp/1416597638/ref=tmm_pap_title_0]Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy: Will Bunch: 9781416597636: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


> It's no accident that today when you see a chart of income inequality in America, it starts in 1980, the year that Reagan was elected to his first term. His steep reduction in top income rates sparked the huge gaps between CEO pay and what the average worker makes, his crushing of the air traffic controllers union launched an era of declining fortunes for blue-collar workers, his deregulation of the savings and loan industry was a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle, and his similar laizzez-faire attitude toward Wall Street inspired some great movies but marked the dawn of an era of insider trading and swindles that went largely unchecked until it finally took America to the brink in 2008.


----------



## bedowin62

Dot Com said:


> the raygun myth must be busted. (It already has but the raygun fluffers just don't want to admit it  )
> Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy: Will Bunch: 9781416597636: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> It's no accident that today when you see a chart of income inequality in America, it starts in 1980, the year that Reagan was elected to his first term. His steep reduction in top income rates sparked the huge gaps between CEO pay and what the average worker makes, his crushing of the air traffic controllers union launched an era of declining fortunes for blue-collar workers, his deregulation of the savings and loan industry was a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle, and his similar laizzez-faire attitude toward Wall Street inspired some great movies but marked the dawn of an era of insider trading and swindles that went largely unchecked until it finally took America to the brink in 2008.
Click to expand...


the Reagan years were better than the obama years; after Reagan turned around the RECESSION HE INHERITED FROM CARTER
 libs are losers who lie to themselves

GDP at this point in Reagan's second term was 7% or higher

ur a joke


----------



## bedowin62

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.


All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.


----------



## Iceweasel

dot com said:


> it's no accident that today when you see a chart of income inequality in america, it starts in 1980


lol.


----------



## Iceweasel

bedowin62 said:


> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.


And many of us remember those days, Carter's Misery Index and double digit inflation, etc.  but are supposed to believe modern day net-tards instead.


----------



## JoeB131

Iceweasel said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> And many of us remember those days, Carter's Misery Index and double digit inflation, etc.  but are supposed to believe modern day net-tards instead.
Click to expand...


Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class. 

It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> And many of us remember those days, Carter's Misery Index and double digit inflation, etc.  but are supposed to believe modern day net-tards instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class.
> 
> It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really.
Click to expand...


He was elected during a recession, how did he create one, and which one?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> And many of us remember those days, Carter's Misery Index and double digit inflation, etc.  but are supposed to believe modern day net-tards instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class.
> 
> It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really.
Click to expand...


Is that when you and RDean were Republicans?


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> And many of us remember those days, Carter's Misery Index and double digit inflation, etc.  but are supposed to believe modern day net-tards instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class.
> 
> It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really.
Click to expand...


Reagan did not cause a recession.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> the raygun myth must be busted. (It already has but the raygun fluffers just don't want to admit it  )
> Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy: Will Bunch: 9781416597636: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> It's no accident that today when you see a chart of income inequality in America, it starts in 1980, the year that Reagan was elected to his first term. His steep reduction in top income rates sparked the huge gaps between CEO pay and what the average worker makes, his crushing of the air traffic controllers union launched an era of declining fortunes for blue-collar workers, his deregulation of the savings and loan industry was a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle, and his similar laizzez-faire attitude toward Wall Street inspired some great movies but marked the dawn of an era of insider trading and swindles that went largely unchecked until it finally took America to the brink in 2008.
Click to expand...




they cover their eyes everytime you post that link.It does no good.I have posted that link here myself HUNDREDS of times with no comment about it except pitiful one liners.

they wont read that book to that link of yours even though he uses actual sources from the 1980's,because they know as well as you and i do,that they only see what they WANT to see.

they wont read links,they wont watch videos,they wont read books,you would have better luck talking to a brick wall then you would with these pitiful lying  trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Noam Chomsky-Whom I am not a fan of at all matter of fact,even HE comes forth and tells the truth about Reagan here in this video-that they wont watch since he calls him out for the traiter he is telling the TRUTH how he betrayed the middle class familys.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8g_XE4oZqU]Noam Chomsky on Reagan's Distorted Legacy, Wisconsin Protests & Obama's Activist Crackdown. 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame]

oh and he is not being biased here either because in this video below,he attacks Obama as well for doing the same thing Reagan did.I thought I would bring that fact up since the reaganuts here always retreat to Obama and his betrayal of america anytime people come on here and trash fellow traiter reagan.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many of us remember those days, Carter's Misery Index and double digit inflation, etc.  but are supposed to believe modern day net-tards instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class.
> 
> It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan did not cause a recession.
Click to expand...





thats why we were better off under carter.while inflation was high under carter,unemployment was MUCH lower under carter than Reagan.

your right,he indeed beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

LOL
Noam Chomsky!!
LOLOL

OMFG!!!

That's hysterical!!!

LOLOloloLOLOL

Noam Chomsky on Reagan!

LOLOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOL
> Noam Chomsky!!
> LOLOL
> 
> OMFG!!!
> 
> That's hysterical!!!
> 
> LOLOloloLOLOL
> 
> Noam Chomsky on Reagan!
> 
> LOLOL



Like I said,im not a fan of him either,guess you missed that part. but he is ALSO bashing obama as well idiot.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> the raygun myth must be busted. (It already has but the raygun fluffers just don't want to admit it  )
> Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy: Will Bunch: 9781416597636: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> It's no accident that today when you see a chart of income inequality in America, it starts in 1980, the year that Reagan was elected to his first term. His steep reduction in top income rates sparked the huge gaps between CEO pay and what the average worker makes, his crushing of the air traffic controllers union launched an era of declining fortunes for blue-collar workers, his deregulation of the savings and loan industry was a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle, and his similar laizzez-faire attitude toward Wall Street inspired some great movies but marked the dawn of an era of insider trading and swindles that went largely unchecked until it finally took America to the brink in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Reagan years were better than the obama years; after Reagan turned around the RECESSION HE INHERITED FROM CARTER
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> GDP at this point in Reagan's second term was 7% or higher
> 
> ur a joke
Click to expand...


the joke here is you reagan worshippers.

all he inherited was an inflation crisis.People have spelled it out to you dummies style that he made things MUCH worse for the economy than carter ever did in the economy only to watch you evade those facts

proof in the pudding.the numbers  on the left show that inflation was high under carters term but low under reagan.the numbers on the right show the unemployment was low under carter but high under reagan.

1977 6.5 7.1
1978 7.6 6.1
1979 11.3 5.9 < Second oil crisis
1980 13.5 7.2
1981 10.3 7.6
1982 6.2 9.7
1983 3.2 9.6
1984 4.3 7.5

the highest unemployment got under carter was 7.2 his last year.most his term,we were doing pretty good. the best reagan did his first term was 7.5 which last time i checked was lower than 7.2. I have posted the link many times only to watch you guys run away from it so Im not about to again.if you actually read sources from the 80's,polls showed back then,most americans thought we were no better off under reagan when he left office than we were under carter.

thats why myself and others keep showing you the link of that book that you guys cowardly wont read cause your scared of the truth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

NYTimes response to Reagan's "Evil Empire" Speech

''Let us pray for the salvation of all those who live in that totalitarian darkness,'' the President Mr. Reagan said, adding that Americans also must not forget that Communists ''are the focus of evil in the modern world.''

He then criticized unidentified people, individuals who, he said, would have the nation accept Communists ''at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses.'' (Like 9/11 and the Democrats)

Now, why didn't anyone say, "Oh the USSR will collapse anyway, what's Reagan worrying about?"

REAGAN DENOUNCES IDEOLOGY OF SOVIET AS 'FOCUS OF EVIL' - NYTimes.com


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class. 

It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really. 
__________________
stands up and gives standing ovation.



thats why they wont watch this video TAKEN from the 80's



 because it backs you up and proves you are telling the truth what a liar Toto and crusader retard and others are so  they wont watch it or  read that book of that link I have posted hundreds of times here and that dot com posted as well recently  and thats cause the truth scares them.so they do this
 when confronted with facts they cant refute.or come back with childish one liners in frustration of defeat as well.hee hee.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> And many of us remember those days, Carter's Misery Index and double digit inflation, etc.  but are supposed to believe modern day net-tards instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class.
> 
> It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really.
Click to expand...




9/11 inside job said:


> Reagan beat inflation by causing a recession and crushing the middle class.
> 
> It was a case of the "cure" being worse than the disease, really.


JoeB is 9/11? Not surprised.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Crusader Retards handlers are getting worried the way they keep sending the resident troll to troll these boards and keep coming back for his constant ass beatings he gets..


----------



## Rockland

Meathead said:


> JoeB is 9/11? Not surprised.



Nah.  9/11 Whackjob is just too brain-addled to correctly use the "quote" function.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

you sure have an obsession over me rat in the ass,now your coming over from the conspiracy section to troll here as well i see after i post.you have the same obsession over me crusader retard has with his lover reagan.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> 
> All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.



as usual,you have been caught lying. post# 1545 in my links debunks your lies.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...nservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-103.html

as does the link dot com posted earlier does to that book that you wont read.


----------



## Rockland

9/11 inside job said:


> you sure have an obsession over me rat in the ass,now your coming over from the conspiracy section to troll here as well i see after i post.you have the same obsession over me crusader retard has with his lover reagan.



Connery made a post a while back proving that I am *NOT* Rat in the Hat.  Would you like me to link to it, tinfoil-for-brains?


----------



## Oldstyle

9/11 inside job said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> the raygun myth must be busted. (It already has but the raygun fluffers just don't want to admit it  )
> Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy: Will Bunch: 9781416597636: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Reagan years were better than the obama years; after Reagan turned around the RECESSION HE INHERITED FROM CARTER
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> GDP at this point in Reagan's second term was 7% or higher
> 
> ur a joke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the joke here is you reagan worshippers.
> 
> all he inherited was an inflation crisis.People have spelled it out to you dummies style that he made things MUCH worse for the economy than carter ever did in the economy only to watch you evade those facts
> 
> proof in the pudding.the numbers  on the left show that inflation was high under carters term but low under reagan.the numbers on the right show the unemployment was low under carter but high under reagan.
> 
> 1977 6.5 7.1
> 1978 7.6 6.1
> 1979 11.3 5.9 < Second oil crisis
> 1980 13.5 7.2
> 1981 10.3 7.6
> 1982 6.2 9.7
> 1983 3.2 9.6
> 1984 4.3 7.5
> 
> the highest unemployment got under carter was 7.2 his last year.most his term,we were doing pretty good. the best reagan did his first term was 7.5 which last time i checked was lower than 7.2. I have posted the link many times only to watch you guys run away from it so Im not about to again.if you actually read sources from the 80's,polls showed back then,most americans thought we were no better off under reagan when he left office than we were under carter.
> 
> thats why myself and others keep showing you the link of that book that you guys cowardly wont read cause your scared of the truth.
Click to expand...


What Reagan "inherited" from Jimmy Carter was Stagflation...a nasty combination of inflation and high unemployment.  His solution was to first lower inflation (which if you remember your Econ 101 leads to higher unemployment) and then to tackle jobs by the way of tax cuts.

Your memory of Carter and Reagan is SO wrong!  Most Americans were far happier at the end of Reagan's two terms than they were at the end of Carter's one.  The US was suffering from "malaise" to use Jimmy Carter's term when Reagan took over.  Reagan turned that around.  Not right away but he did turn it around and when he did it led to the longest period of sustained economic growth in the last hundred years.

Why you think anyone would "run" from your totally wrong analysis of what took place back then is beyond me.  To be quite honest with you...it's a laughable claim made by someone that doesn't appear to know much about economics OR history.


----------



## Meathead

In stark contrast to a certain far more recent POTUS, Reagan did not spend his entire administration whining about the mess he inherited. Reagan (gasp!) did something about it. I guess it's one of those things that separates the men from the boys.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> In stark contrast to a certain far more recent POTUS, Reagan did not spend his entire administration whining about the mess he inherited. Reagan (gasp!) did something about it. I guess it's one of those things that separates the men from the boys.



Reagan blamed Carter at every oppurtunity...  

Again, another one of these guys who doesn't remember the real Reagan, just remembers the "Myth".


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> What Reagan "inherited" from Jimmy Carter was Stagflation...a nasty combination of inflation and high unemployment.  His solution was to first lower inflation (which if you remember your Econ 101 leads to higher unemployment) and then to tackle jobs by the way of tax cuts.



Except that the average wage of the middle class had still declined by the end of Ray-Guns term. 

The only reason why "jobs" came back at all not because of tax cuts, but because Reagan tripled the national debt paying for expensive military toys.  In short, he was as much a Keynesian as FDR was.   And then when he realized that Trickle Down didn't work, he agreed to tax increases in the guise of "Tax Reform" that was anything but.  



Oldstyle said:


> [
> Your memory of Carter and Reagan is SO wrong!  Most Americans were far happier at the end of Reagan's two terms than they were at the end of Carter's one.  The US was suffering from "malaise" to use Jimmy Carter's term when Reagan took over.  Reagan turned that around.  Not right away but he did turn it around and when he did it led to the longest period of sustained economic growth in the last hundred years.



I guess Reagan gets credit for making Americans "feel better" about themselves, but that's because most Americans are kind of stupid compared to their European and Japanese counterparts.  Yes, as the sting of Vietnam and Watergate faded, Americans did feel better about themselves.   They just didn't solve the underlying problems, they made them worse.  Wages continued to decline, the middle class continued to erode, and more manufacturing went overseas. 




Oldstyle said:


> [
> Why you think anyone would "run" from your totally wrong analysis of what took place back then is beyond me.  To be quite honest with you...it's a laughable claim made by someone that doesn't appear to know much about economics OR history.



Guy, I lived through the Reagan years.  They weren't the happy times you guys made them out to be, and frankly, people were really looking for change in 1988.  At one point, Dukakis led Bush by 16 points.  Then we found out what kind of dude Dukakis was, and the guy wouldn't fight back against scurilous lies, and we got the first of the Idiot Bush's in office.


----------



## Meathead

I lived through the Reagan years too and witnessed success after success, a period of rarely seen substantial and maintained economic progress and the submission of the Soviet Union. I also witnessed 2 amazing landslide victories and the most popular presidency in recent history. Sadly, today we see a weak and vacillating president who could not offer a more vivid yet depressing contrast to what great leadership we once had.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> In stark contrast to a certain far more recent POTUS, Reagan did not spend his entire administration whining about the mess he inherited. Reagan (gasp!) did something about it. I guess it's one of those things that separates the men from the boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan blamed Carter at every oppurtunity...
> 
> Again, another one of these guys who doesn't remember the real Reagan, just remembers the "Myth".
Click to expand...


He did not you lying Twat


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> I lived through the Reagan years too and witnessed success after success, a period of rarely seen substantial and maintained economic progress and the submission of the Soviet Union. I also witnessed 2 amazing landslide victories and the most popular presidency in recent history. Sadly, today we see a weak and vacillating president who could not offer a more vivid yet depressing contrast to what great leadership we once had.



Reagan barely cleared 50% in 1980.  The only reason he won an impressive electoral victory was because John Anderson siphoned away a lot of the votes Carter would have gotten.  

And frankly, Reagan knuckled under to the USSR pretty often. 

He did nothing when they shot down that Korean Airliner.
He did nothing when the Russians cracked down on Poland. 

While Reagan was happy to slap around little countries like Grenada and Libya, he had the good sense God gave dogs to not fuck with the USSR. 

Final point. The USSR didn't collapse until the Watch of Bush the Elder.  When Reagan left office, everyone still considered the USSR a big threat.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived through the Reagan years too and witnessed success after success, a period of rarely seen substantial and maintained economic progress and the submission of the Soviet Union. I also witnessed 2 amazing landslide victories and the most popular presidency in recent history. Sadly, today we see a weak and vacillating president who could not offer a more vivid yet depressing contrast to what great leadership we once had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan barely cleared 50% in 1980.  The only reason he won an impressive electoral victory was because John Anderson siphoned away a lot of the votes Carter would have gotten.
> 
> And frankly, Reagan knuckled under to the USSR pretty often.
> 
> He did nothing when they shot down that Korean Airliner.
> He did nothing when the Russians cracked down on Poland.
> 
> there you go making a fool of yourself again. Reagan couldnt do shit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to; and
> 
> While Reagan was happy to slap around little countries like Grenada and Libya, he had the good sense God gave dogs to not fuck with the USSR.
> 
> Final point. The USSR didn't collapse until the Watch of Bush the Elder.  When Reagan left office, everyone still considered the USSR a big threat.
Click to expand...




there you go making a fool of yourself again. Reagan couldnt do shit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to; and his electoral victories were bigger than obama's but you have some idiotic excuse for that too.
ur a lemming and a loser; stuck in the past; the exact same kind of hyper-partisan fool you love to rant the other side is


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> In stark contrast to a certain far more recent POTUS, Reagan did not spend his entire administration whining about the mess he inherited. Reagan (gasp!) did something about it. I guess it's one of those things that separates the men from the boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan blamed Carter at every oppurtunity...
> 
> Again, another one of these guys who doesn't remember the real Reagan, just remembers the "Myth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did not you lying Twat
Click to expand...


Reagan Blamed Carter

The next time you hear a right winger complaining that one whole year! into Obama's Presidency he continues to blame George Bush for his our problems, remind them of the following quote from Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:


"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."


In Reagan's 1982 State of the Union, he went after his predecessor for blame plenty of times:

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous."

...

"In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."

...

"First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"

...

"Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs."


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived through the Reagan years too and witnessed success after success, a period of rarely seen substantial and maintained economic progress and the submission of the Soviet Union. I also witnessed 2 amazing landslide victories and the most popular presidency in recent history. Sadly, today we see a weak and vacillating president who could not offer a more vivid yet depressing contrast to what great leadership we once had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan barely cleared 50% in 1980.  The only reason he won an impressive electoral victory was because John Anderson siphoned away a lot of the votes Carter would have gotten.
> 
> And frankly, Reagan knuckled under to the USSR pretty often.
> 
> He did nothing when they shot down that Korean Airliner.
> He did nothing when the Russians cracked down on Poland.
> 
> While Reagan was happy to slap around little countries like Grenada and Libya, he had the good sense God gave dogs to not fuck with the USSR.
> 
> Final point. The USSR didn't collapse until the Watch of Bush the Elder.  When Reagan left office, everyone still considered the USSR a big threat.
Click to expand...


Reagan "fucked with the USSR" every chance he got; including ridiculing them at the Berlin Wall; lecturing him to "tear down this wall"

you dont know what you're talking about; as usual


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan blamed Carter at every oppurtunity...
> 
> Again, another one of these guys who doesn't remember the real Reagan, just remembers the "Myth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did not you lying Twat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan Blamed Carter
> 
> The next time you hear a right winger complaining that one whole year! into Obama's Presidency he continues to blame George Bush for his our problems, remind them of the following quote from Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:
> 
> 
> "The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."
> 
> 
> In Reagan's 1982 State of the Union, he went after his predecessor for blame plenty of times:
> 
> "To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous."
> 
> ...
> 
> "In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."
> 
> ...
> 
> "First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"
> 
> ...
> 
> "Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs."
Click to expand...



the difference is Reagan succeeded you dolt; that was in the earyly Reagan years

 obama and his lemmings like you are still blamin Bush in obama's 6th year


----------



## bedowin62

1982 Reagan had been in office one year

 your talking points make the case for the other side

 at the point obama is at in Reagans' second term GDP growth was over 7%

ur a loser; conducting a mind-fuck on yourself; twisting and distorting things to suit your narrative


----------



## bedowin62

and Reagan had a Democrat Congress to work with. obama had a huge Dem majority for all of both his first two yeas and STILL cried and blamed his failures on others


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> [
> there you go making a fool of yourself again. Reagan couldnt do shit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to; and his electoral victories were bigger than obama's but you have some idiotic excuse for that too.
> ur a lemming and a loser; stuck in the past; the exact same kind of hyper-partisan fool you love to rant the other side is



Guy, I was a Right Wing Republican until about 7 years ago when I figured out the GOP only works for rich people.  

But reality check, Reagan had no problem passing legislation through Congress.  They went along with his tax cuts and his miitary spending on$600 toliet seats and all the rest of the bad ideas.  

What didn't happen was that when there was a problem, Tip O'Neill didn't threaten to shut down the government if he didn't get his way on something.  He came to the table with ideas and he made deals.  So Social Security didn't collapse in the 1980's.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> there you go making a fool of yourself again. Reagan couldnt do shit if his 8-year Dem-majority House didnt want him to; and his electoral victories were bigger than obama's but you have some idiotic excuse for that too.
> ur a lemming and a loser; stuck in the past; the exact same kind of hyper-partisan fool you love to rant the other side is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was a Right Wing Republican until about 7 years ago when I figured out the GOP only works for rich people.
> 
> But reality check, Reagan had no problem passing legislation through Congress.  They went along with his tax cuts and his miitary spending on$600 toliet seats and all the rest of the bad ideas.
> 
> What didn't happen was that when there was a problem, Tip O'Neill didn't threaten to shut down the government if he didn't get his way on something.  He came to the table with ideas and he made deals.  So Social Security didn't collapse in the 1980's.
Click to expand...



gee idiot; maybe  you'll have another epiphany when you finally admit to yourself some FACTS; under obama; the rich are getting MUCH richer and at a faster rate than under Bush; and the Middle class and working poor are getting poorer


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> and Reagan had a Democrat Congress to work with. obama had a huge Dem majority for all of both his first two yeas and STILL cried and blamed his failures on others



Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first six years.  

And the coalition between Southern Conservative Democrats (AKA "Boll Weevils") and Republicans gave him a working majority on a lot of issues.  

More importantly, though, the good thing about Reagan was that he wasn't a Teabagging fanatic.  He sat down with the other side and got things done.  

If you weren't about 12, you'd know this.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Reagan had a Democrat Congress to work with. obama had a huge Dem majority for all of both his first two yeas and STILL cried and blamed his failures on others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first six years.
> 
> And the coalition between Southern Conservative Democrats (AKA "Boll Weevils") and Republicans gave him a working majority on a lot of issues.
> 
> More importantly, though, the good thing about Reagan was that he wasn't a Teabagging fanatic.  He sat down with the other side and got things done.
> 
> If you weren't about 12, you'd know this.
Click to expand...



you're a laughable loser

 lib lemings are running around calling Congress "Republican" when it's had just a Republican House and that for less than 4 years

 but since reagan has a republican Senate for a few years that makes congress Republican too?

 ur a joke


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Reagan had a Democrat Congress to work with. obama had a huge Dem majority for all of both his first two yeas and STILL cried and blamed his failures on others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first six years.
> 
> And the coalition between Southern Conservative Democrats (AKA "Boll Weevils") and Republicans gave him a working majority on a lot of issues.
> 
> More importantly, though, the good thing about Reagan was that he wasn't a Teabagging fanatic.  He sat down with the other side and got things done.
> 
> If you weren't about 12, you'd know this.
Click to expand...




bottom line is reagan worked with people?

 ok; and clinton worked with people?

 ok

 and i could fill up this page with "Bush" policies Dems voted for?


so who is different moron?

OBAMA
 and he isnt failing becaue of the Tiny tea Party

ur a joke


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Reagan had a Democrat Congress to work with. obama had a huge Dem majority for all of both his first two yeas and STILL cried and blamed his failures on others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first six years.
> 
> And the coalition between Southern Conservative Democrats (AKA "Boll Weevils") and Republicans gave him a working majority on a lot of issues.
> 
> More importantly, though, the good thing about Reagan was that he wasn't a Teabagging fanatic.  He sat down with the other side and got things done.
> 
> If you weren't about 12, you'd know this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you're a laughable loser
> 
> lib lemings are running around calling Congress "Republican" when it's had just a Republican House and that for less than 4 years
> 
> but since reagan has a republican Senate for a few years that makes congress Republican too?
> 
> ur a joke
Click to expand...


Again, these Southern Democrats were happy to go along with any stupid thing Reagan wanted to do.  

So he had an effective majority.  



> Nonetheless, a bloc of conservative Democrats, mostly Southerners, remained in the United States Congress throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Conservative Coalition). These included Democratic House members as conservative as Larry McDonald, who was also a leader in the John Birch Society. During the administration of Ronald Reagan, the term "boll weevils" was applied to this bloc of conservative Democrats, who consistently voted for tax cuts, increases in military spending, and deregulation favored by the Reagan administration.
> 
> "Boll weevils" was sometimes used as a political epithet by Democratic Party leaders, implying the boll weevils were unreliable on key votes or not team players.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_(politics)


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first six years.
> 
> And the coalition between Southern Conservative Democrats (AKA "Boll Weevils") and Republicans gave him a working majority on a lot of issues.
> 
> More importantly, though, the good thing about Reagan was that he wasn't a Teabagging fanatic.  He sat down with the other side and got things done.
> 
> If you weren't about 12, you'd know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're a laughable loser
> 
> lib lemings are running around calling Congress "Republican" when it's had just a Republican House and that for less than 4 years
> 
> but since reagan has a republican Senate for a few years that makes congress Republican too?
> 
> ur a joke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, these Southern Democrats were happy to go along with any stupid thing Reagan wanted to do.
> 
> So he had an effective majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, a bloc of conservative Democrats, mostly Southerners, remained in the United States Congress throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Conservative Coalition). These included Democratic House members as conservative as Larry McDonald, who was also a leader in the John Birch Society. During the administration of Ronald Reagan, the term "boll weevils" was applied to this bloc of conservative Democrats, who consistently voted for tax cuts, increases in military spending, and deregulation favored by the Reagan administration.
> 
> "Boll weevils" was sometimes used as a political epithet by Democratic Party leaders, implying the boll weevils were unreliable on key votes or not team players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_(politics)
Click to expand...



again you lie to yourself

 it was more than Southern Dems that voted for reagan's policies

 in fact so many dems voted for his policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT WAS COINED to describe them


----------



## bedowin62

i understand; a hard-core lefty like you is still butt-sore that your Donkey purged out almost all of the Blue Dog moderates; but is still failing


----------



## editec

Do you people not yet understand that neither REAGAN nor CARTER had ANY CONTROL over the FED's decision to raise interest rates?

The FED killed inflation by reducing the amount of NEW MONEY going into the economy.

That slowly decreased inflation by putting millions and millions of American out of work.

Regans's first two years were HELL.

The DOW was about 400 or so.

Seriously go read some history.

Many of you make yourselves look like total asses


----------



## bedowin62

Reagan had an 8-year Dem-majority House; and a 2 year Dem-majority Senate; so he had 2 years where dems controlled both chambers

 obama has never had the other Party controlling both chambers; he's either had both chambers of the Senate; and he's still crying................and your'e trying to imply that reagans' congress was republican too?

 and so you cry that regan had a coalition of southern dems; 

so the eff what?

all you're saying without knowin it is that obama is the weak leader th other side says he is; unable to builld bridges and find a consensus


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> in fact so many dems voted for his policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT WAS COINED to describe them



You continue to use that definition for the term Reagan Democrat over and over. Can you at least show us which RW blog or whatever you got that definition or did you just make up that definition in your head?


----------



## bedowin62

editec said:


> Do you people not yet understand that neither REAGAN nor CARTER had ANY CONTROL over the FED's decision to raise interest rates?
> 
> The FED killed inflation by reducing the amount of NEW MONEY going into the economy.
> 
> That slowly decreased inflation by putting millions and millions of American out of work.
> 
> Regans's first two years were HELL.
> 
> The DOW was about 400 or so.
> 
> Seriously go read some history.
> 
> Many of you make yourselves look like total asses





you are implying that the president has no influence over the Fed; and that the money supply is the only factor in the economy'


the idiot is you

the only idiot here is you


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in fact so many dems voted for his policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT WAS COINED to describe them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to use that definition for the term Reagan Democrat over and over. Can you at least show us which RW blog or whatever you got that definition or did you just make up that definition in your head?
Click to expand...




u are a complete idiot. do you know what Google is you moron?

 just because you're a lemming; doesnt mean only "right-wing blogs" know what a Reagan Democrat is


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in fact so many dems voted for his policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT WAS COINED to describe them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to use that definition for the term Reagan Democrat over and over. Can you at least show us which RW blog or whatever you got that definition or did you just make up that definition in your head?
Click to expand...




i'm sorry moron; perhaps communicating with you would be more effective if you provided me with a list of LW sources to use; to find actual historical events and people like the Reagan Democrats with, to teach you.
 i

so what? 

Hufffington Post?

Mother Jones?


----------



## bedowin62

then again even if i provide a source that isnt Fox News or the Heritage Foundation; or something like that; you losers still whine that it isnt good enough; and if it from a Left-wing source you will either 1. deny it, 2. distort it. or 3. change the subect


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in fact so many dems voted for his policies that the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT WAS COINED to describe them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to use that definition for the term Reagan Democrat over and over. Can you at least show us which RW blog or whatever you got that definition or did you just make up that definition in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> u are a complete idiot. do you know what Google is you moron?
> 
> just because you're a lemming; doesnt mean only "right-wing blogs" know what a Reagan Democrat is
Click to expand...


Stop evading the question. Calling people idiots and morons doesn't make you appear to be smart or informed. It just makes you look like the idiot or moron when you use the name calling tactic to evade backing up a question you have been asked. You have been given the definition of Reagan Democrat a bunch of times, even by actual Reagan Democrats. So at least give us this hint. How many google pages does one have to go through before they stumble onto the site that gives the definition you are using instead of the one everyone else uses?


----------



## Iceweasel

Meathead said:


> I lived through the Reagan years too and witnessed success after success, a period of rarely seen substantial and maintained economic progress and the submission of the Soviet Union. I also witnessed 2 amazing landslide victories and the most popular presidency in recent history. Sadly, today we see a weak and vacillating president who could not offer a more vivid yet depressing contrast to what great leadership we once had.


Amen to that. That's what lefties do, their policies are a steamy pile so they try to make the other guy look worse. Rewriting Reagan's legacy is apparently the new approach to protecting this mess. The younger ones that are too lazy to look it up for themselves might be influenced but not those of us who know better. But the uninformed voter IS their base.


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to use that definition for the term Reagan Democrat over and over. Can you at least show us which RW blog or whatever you got that definition or did you just make up that definition in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> u are a complete idiot. do you know what Google is you moron?
> 
> just because you're a lemming; doesnt mean only "right-wing blogs" know what a Reagan Democrat is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop evading the question. Calling people idiots and morons doesn't make you appear to be smart or informed. It just makes you look like the idiot or moron when you use the name calling tactic to evade backing up a question you have been asked. You have been given the definition of Reagan Democrat a bunch of times, even by actual Reagan Democrats. So at least give us this hint. How many google pages does one have to go through before they stumble onto the site that gives the definition you are using instead of the one everyone else uses?
Click to expand...



i didnt evade anything. it's not my fault you're ignorant. i ddint get the term "Reagan Democrat" from a "right-wing blog" or any right-wing source at all
 it's not me evading; it's you being willfully ignorant

 i could stop calling you names; but it wont make you any less of a lemming. so why should i bother/


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to use that definition for the term Reagan Democrat over and over. Can you at least show us which RW blog or whatever you got that definition or did you just make up that definition in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> u are a complete idiot. do you know what Google is you moron?
> 
> just because you're a lemming; doesnt mean only "right-wing blogs" know what a Reagan Democrat is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop evading the question. Calling people idiots and morons doesn't make you appear to be smart or informed. It just makes you look like the idiot or moron when you use the name calling tactic to evade backing up a question you have been asked. You have been given the definition of Reagan Democrat a bunch of times, even by actual Reagan Democrats. So at least give us this hint. How many google pages does one have to go through before they stumble onto the site that gives the definition you are using instead of the one everyone else uses?
Click to expand...



what is the definition of Reagan Democrat you use?  or "everybody else uses"? where does it come from? how many pages of Google do you have to go through to find it before you stumble on one that makes my point any different? what IS your point?

 did Democrats abandon the Dem Party in droves and elect and re-elect not only Reagan but Democrat representatives to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies?

 did Democrats who WERE ALREADY IN CONGRESS also vote for Reagan's policies?

what about my definition dont you like? what part isnt true? how is your definition different? how does it change the things i mentioned above.. ????


dont evade the question now

 and how would that change my main point?


----------



## Meathead

Iceweasel said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived through the Reagan years too and witnessed success after success, a period of rarely seen substantial and maintained economic progress and the submission of the Soviet Union. I also witnessed 2 amazing landslide victories and the most popular presidency in recent history. Sadly, today we see a weak and vacillating president who could not offer a more vivid yet depressing contrast to what great leadership we once had.
> 
> 
> 
> Amen to that. That's what lefties do, their policies are a steamy pile so they try to make the other guy look worse. Rewriting Reagan's legacy is apparently the new approach to protecting this mess. The younger ones that are too lazy to look it up for themselves might be influenced but not those of us who know better. But the uninformed voter IS their base.
Click to expand...

Reagan has made all his successors look bad in contrast. The starkest is of course the current POTUS, which is why Obama's supporters hope that by belittling Reagan, he won't look the abject failure that he's quickly becoming.


----------



## bedowin62

Camp is mad a called some people names; tried to call me out on my definition of Reagan Democrat; seemed to be crying that it didnt mean what i said it meaned.

 so i asked him what is the "real" definition; and how does it change my central point that the left-wing losers here crying about Reagan cant explain how reagan could have got ANYTHING done without the help of the Reagan Democrats. and since so meny Dems abandoned their Party to vote for Reagan in elections; or Dems in Congress for his policies; its laughable for left-wingers to keep crying bout Reagan.

 Camp; trying to call me out for misrepsresenting things; couldnt even be bothered to respond.

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> i understand; a hard-core lefty like you is still butt-sore that your Donkey purged out almost all of the Blue Dog moderates; but is still failing



No, guy, i'm upset that senile old fuck destroyed the American MIddle Class, but unlike you, I'm old enough to remember what that looked like.


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> u are a complete idiot. do you know what Google is you moron?
> 
> just because you're a lemming; doesnt mean only "right-wing blogs" know what a Reagan Democrat is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop evading the question. Calling people idiots and morons doesn't make you appear to be smart or informed. It just makes you look like the idiot or moron when you use the name calling tactic to evade backing up a question you have been asked. You have been given the definition of Reagan Democrat a bunch of times, even by actual Reagan Democrats. So at least give us this hint. How many google pages does one have to go through before they stumble onto the site that gives the definition you are using instead of the one everyone else uses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what is the definition of Reagan Democrat you use?  or "everybody else uses"? where does it come from? how many pages of Google do you have to go through to find it before you stumble on one that makes my point any different? what IS your point?
> 
> did Democrats abandon the Dem Party in droves and elect and re-elect not only Reagan but Democrat representatives to Congress that voted for Reagan's policies?
> 
> did Democrats who WERE ALREADY IN CONGRESS also vote for Reagan's policies?
> 
> what about my definition dont you like? what part isnt true? how is your definition different? how does it change the things i mentioned above.. ????
> 
> 
> dont evade the question now
> 
> and how would that change my main point?
Click to expand...


If you can not comprehend the meaning of Reagan Democrats and the implications and meaning of voters voting split tickets, the concious effort to balance power between the executive and legislative branchs and the concept that ideology is secondary to pragmatism you will not understand the Reagan era let alone the meaning of Reagan Democrats. 

Unable to comprehend even the basic premise of Reagan Democrats, it is highly unlikely you would comprehend some of the real causes of the fall of the USSR. The Reagan worshippers will continue to give Reagan credit even though when he left office the USSR was still standing. They continue to refuse to aknowlede that the beginning of the fall actulally began shortly after a huge ground war put western weapons and weapon systems against USSR weapons and weapons systems. This ground war made it obvious that the weapons of the USSR were no match for weapons of the USA and NATO. The USSR air defense and aircraft were knocked out and down immediatly. The best Russian tanks were destroyed and turned into burning hulks. Any future conventional war in Europe became obvious and certain. Less than a year after that war, the USSR decided to desolve itself. Bush 41, the elder, former CIA Director and VP under Reagan was the President at the time.


----------



## editec

bedowin62 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people not yet understand that neither REAGAN nor CARTER had ANY CONTROL over the FED's decision to raise interest rates?
> 
> The FED killed inflation by reducing the amount of NEW MONEY going into the economy.
> 
> That slowly decreased inflation by putting millions and millions of American out of work.
> 
> Regans's first two years were HELL.
> 
> The DOW was about 400 or so.
> 
> Seriously go read some history.
> 
> Many of you make yourselves look like total asses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are implying that the president has no influence over the Fed; and that the money supply is the only factor in the economy'
Click to expand...


Oh I didn't IMPLY that, lad, I told you flat out that is the truth.

The FED decides these things and they often do so despite what the POTUS would like.

Seriously kiddo, go read fucking book...educate yourself.

Start with economic history of the US


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand; a hard-core lefty like you is still butt-sore that your Donkey purged out almost all of the Blue Dog moderates; but is still failing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, i'm upset that senile old fuck destroyed the American MIddle Class, but unlike you, I'm old enough to remember what that looked like.
Click to expand...


LOL. 

You're a joke.

Good thing you get paid to post here. I'd hate to think you were this stupid in real life


----------



## Dante

namvet said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your a special kind of stupid
Click to expand...


and you're a special kind of parasite on the American dime


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Remember how absolutely nobody saw the collapse of the USSR coming and said, "What's Reagan talking about, the USSR is on its last legs and about to have a going out of business sale"

Remember that?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Remember how absolutely nobody saw the collapse of the USSR coming and said, "What's Reagan talking about, the USSR is on its last legs and about to have a going out of business sale"
> 
> Remember that?



NO, because Reagan never really said that. 

He denounced their idealogy up and down. But he never really predicted their collapse and it's disingenous for you to claim he did.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how absolutely nobody saw the collapse of the USSR coming and said, "What's Reagan talking about, the USSR is on its last legs and about to have a going out of business sale"
> 
> Remember that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, because Reagan never really said that.
> 
> He denounced their idealogy up and down. But he never really predicted their collapse and it's disingenous for you to claim he did.
Click to expand...


Reagan was the only person who saw it coming.  Ash heap of history...Last chapters being written

 and you mocked him at the time for saying your motherland was going to collapse

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you people not yet understand that neither REAGAN nor CARTER had ANY CONTROL over the FED's decision to raise interest rates?
> 
> The FED killed inflation by reducing the amount of NEW MONEY going into the economy.
> 
> That slowly decreased inflation by putting millions and millions of American out of work.
> 
> Regans's first two years were HELL.
> 
> The DOW was about 400 or so.
> 
> Seriously go read some history.
> 
> Many of you make yourselves look like total asses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are implying that the president has no influence over the Fed; and that the money supply is the only factor in the economy'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I didn't IMPLY that, lad, I told you flat out that is the truth.
> 
> The FED decides these things and they often do so despite what the POTUS would like.
> 
> Seriously kiddo, go read fucking book...educate yourself.
> 
> Start with economic history of the US
Click to expand...


they wont read it.Myself and Camp have posted the link to to the book Tearing down the myth about reagans false legacy and the cowardly trolls refuse to read it so they wont read that book either.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand; a hard-core lefty like you is still butt-sore that your Donkey purged out almost all of the Blue Dog moderates; but is still failing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, i'm upset that senile old fuck destroyed the American MIddle Class, but unlike you, I'm old enough to remember what that looked like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> You're a joke.
> 
> Good thing you get paid to post here. I'd hate to think you were this stupid in real life
Click to expand...


Hey hypocrite paid troll.He isnt the chickenshit coward refusing to read books and links and watch videos like you reagan worshippers.

He isnt the stupid fuck you are  refusing to read this quote of Reagans appointee as CIA director William CASEY said below.you trolls wont read it since Casey got the CIA back to its evil ways again under casey after carter hired Stansfield Turner who reformed the CIA.

http://www.dailypaul.com/310764/wel...an-public-believes-is-false-william-casey-cia

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
http://www.whale.to/b/casey_h.html


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how absolutely nobody saw the collapse of the USSR coming and said, "What's Reagan talking about, the USSR is on its last legs and about to have a going out of business sale"
> 
> Remember that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, because Reagan never really said that.
> 
> He denounced their idealogy up and down. But he never really predicted their collapse and it's disingenous for you to claim he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan was the only person who saw it coming.  Ash heap of history...Last chapters being written
> 
> and you mocked him at the time for saying your motherland was going to collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Click to expand...


Specifically, what speech did Reagan see it coming?  

Thanks.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> Camp is mad a called some people names; tried to call me out on my definition of Reagan Democrat; seemed to be crying that it didnt mean what i said it meaned.
> 
> so i asked him what is the "real" definition; and how does it change my central point that the left-wing losers here crying about Reagan cant explain how reagan could have got ANYTHING done without the help of the Reagan Democrats. and since so meny Dems abandoned their Party to vote for Reagan in elections; or Dems in Congress for his policies; its laughable for left-wingers to keep crying bout Reagan.
> 
> Camp; trying to call me out for misrepsresenting things; couldnt even be bothered to respond.
> 
> idiots and hypocrites



that would be you reagan worshippers. posters like camp get tired of replying to your lies ignoring facts how reagan betrayed the middle class familys,had no impact on the USSR falling,and prove what a chickenshit coward you all  are running away evading these facts of how  corrupt and evil he was.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html

&#8226;Liar 
&#8226;Thief 
&#8226;Mass murderer 
&#8226;Supporter of abortion 
&#8226;War criminal 
&#8226; 
&#8226; 

&#8226;Destroyer of freedom 
&#8226;Traitor of the American people 
&#8226;Corporate whore 
&#8226;Destroyer of the environment 
&#8226;Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "
&#8226;


----------



## LA RAM FAN

the CIA controlled media worships Reagan as hte best president ever and brainwashes the sheople-the non paid trolls that arent on this thread defending him,they brainwash them with their propaganda since Reagan was the pioneer of betraying america shipping jobs overseas. a trait every american president has followed since then,expanding what he got started.Since reagan was the originater who started it all,the media  made up the myth about him.thats why Obama said before his inaguration,he admired Reagan.

these trolls cant face facts though that actual polls taken back then  showed most americans were not happy with Reagans performace the majority of time while in office though.

dante proved that earlier in one of his posts only to watch the trolls all ignore it.I'll have to find it again it looks like.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, because Reagan never really said that.
> 
> He denounced their idealogy up and down. But he never really predicted their collapse and it's disingenous for you to claim he did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was the only person who saw it coming.  Ash heap of history...Last chapters being written
> 
> and you mocked him at the time for saying your motherland was going to collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Specifically, what speech did Reagan see it coming?
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Seriously? You're *THAT* ignorant about Reagan and you spew your stupid nonsense 24/7?


"I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." -- 3/8/1983 from the "Evil Empire Speech

JoeB, what a fucking asshole


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Tis is WHY the reaganut worshippers lead by resident troll and cousin of reagans Crusader Retard wont read the book about reagan called tearing down the myth since it exposes these facts about him.lol

Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy


Reagan was one of our most popular presidents. 

It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore. 

During his presidency, Reagan's popularity had high peaks - after the attempt on his life in 1981, for example - and huge valleys. In 1982, as the national unemployment rate spiked above 10 percent, Reagan's approval rating fell to 35 percent. At the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, nearly one-third of Americans wanted him to resign. 


In the early 1990s, shortly after Reagan left office, several polls found even the much-maligned Jimmy Carter to be more popular. 


Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan. 




this post will go ignored of course just like that link i have posted hundrds of times has.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was the only person who saw it coming.  Ash heap of history...Last chapters being written
> 
> and you mocked him at the time for saying your motherland was going to collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically, what speech did Reagan see it coming?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? You're *THAT* ignorant about Reagan and you spew your stupid nonsense 24/7?
> 
> 
> "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." -- 3/8/1983 from the "Evil Empire Speech
> 
> JoeB, what a fucking asshole
Click to expand...


your the fucking asshole who like the chickenshit coward you are,runs awaqy from facts that has meltdowns when you are cornered. yea  joe is a fucking asshole cause he doesnt run away from links,videos and books that tell the truth about reagan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Why bother with links from "Libtards for Christ" and Noam Chomsky on Reagan? It's like Goebbels explains the Torah. You have to be a fucking retard to take it seriously


----------



## longly

Why can&#8217;t liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.


----------



## longly

Why cant liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was the only person who saw it coming.  Ash heap of history...Last chapters being written
> 
> and you mocked him at the time for saying your motherland was going to collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically, what speech did Reagan see it coming?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? You're *THAT* ignorant about Reagan and you spew your stupid nonsense 24/7?
> 
> 
> "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." -- 3/8/1983 from the "Evil Empire Speech
> 
> JoeB, what a fucking asshole
Click to expand...


That's not a prediction of the fall of the Soviet Union.   

Seriously, I could make a better argument that Nostradamus predicted the fall of the USSR.  

Where did Ronald Reagan predict the USSR would fragment because its individual nationalities would reassert themselves?


----------



## JoeB131

longly said:


> Why cant liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.



Because being slaves to multi-national corporations is infinitely worse?


----------



## bedowin62

Americans were better off when Republicans ran things

 it really is that simple


----------



## bedowin62

being slaves to all-intrusive Progressive ideology is the way to go for some morons


----------



## CrusaderFrank

longly said:


> Why cant liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.



American liberals truly believe that life in a communist dictatorship is cool and better than what they presently have

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically, what speech did Reagan see it coming?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? You're *THAT* ignorant about Reagan and you spew your stupid nonsense 24/7?
> 
> 
> "I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written." -- 3/8/1983 from the "Evil Empire Speech
> 
> JoeB, what a fucking asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a prediction of the fall of the Soviet Union.
> 
> Seriously, I could make a better argument that Nostradamus predicted the fall of the USSR.  t
> 
> Where did Ronald Reagan predict the USSR would fragment because its individual nationalities would reassert themselves?
Click to expand...


JoeB like I said I hope you get paid to post here because its criminal that someone can be that stupid and dishonest in real life

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why cant liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because being slaves to multi-national corporations is infinitely worse?
Click to expand...


You obviously know little about the true nature of communism, Joe.  I suggest you read up on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and get back to me about how working for a big corporation is so much worse than living under the thumb of communism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Tis is WHY the reaganut worshippers lead by resident troll and cousin of reagans Crusader Retard wont read the book about reagan called tearing down the myth since it exposes these facts about him.lol
> 
> Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy
> 
> 
> Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.
> 
> It's true that Reagan is popular more than two decades after leaving office. A CNN/Opinion Research poll last month gave him the third-highest approval rating among presidents of the past 50 years, behind John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. But Reagan's average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular - 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.
> 
> During his presidency, Reagan's popularity had high peaks - after the attempt on his life in 1981, for example - and huge valleys. In 1982, as the national unemployment rate spiked above 10 percent, Reagan's approval rating fell to 35 percent. At the height of the Iran-Contra scandal, nearly one-third of Americans wanted him to resign.
> 
> 
> In the early 1990s, shortly after Reagan left office, several polls found even the much-maligned Jimmy Carter to be more popular.
> 
> 
> Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. Indeed, a USA Today poll taken four days after the fall of the Berlin Wall found that 43 percent of Americans credited Gorbachev, while only 14 percent cited Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this post will go ignored of course just like that link i have posted hundrds of times has.



I read the article and I stopped at the Libtard "Reagan raised taxes" meme.

Where were tax rates when Reagan entered Office?

Where were they when he left?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why cant liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because being slaves to multi-national corporations is infinitely worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously know little about the true nature of communism, Joe.  I suggest you read up on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and get back to me about how working for a big corporation is so much worse than living under the thumb of communism.
Click to expand...


JoeB is dying to live under the thumb of a dictator and have his life controlled 24/7


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I was going to stop reading after the "Myth of Reagan popularity"

Did you know he won 56 of our 57 states in his reelection?


----------



## RKMBrown

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...

What a dumb ass OP.


----------



## bedowin62

RKMBrown said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a dumb ass OP.
Click to expand...



it's laughable really; the disconnect the loser Left suffers from; and the projection of their own self-delusions onto others.  reagan couldnt have done anything if his 8-year Dem House majority didnt want him to. of course the people "living on a myth" are liberals a usual; pretending a whole class of Dems that voted for Reagan's policies never existed


----------



## RKMBrown

bedowin62 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it's laughable really; the disconnect the loser Left suffers from; and the projection of their own self-delusions onto others.  reagan couldnt have done anything if his 8-year Dem House majority didnt want him to. of course the people "living on a myth" are liberals a usual; pretending a whole class of Dems that voted for Reagan's policies never existed
Click to expand...


Next up some dumb ass libtard chart showing how trickle down doesn't work because only the government knows how best to spend our income, and some other dumb ass proclaiming we have to borrow our way out of debt, and yet another dumbocrat crying about Bush.


----------



## Oldstyle

CrusaderFrank said:


> I was going to stop reading after the "Myth of Reagan popularity"
> 
> Did you know he won 56 of our 57 states in his reelection?



Just one more and he would have had the "Obama Sweep"!


----------



## longly

JoeB131 said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why cant liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because being slaves to multi-national corporations is infinitely worse?
Click to expand...


All forms of slavery are evil and unacceptable and death is better.  But if you are a free person and you live in a free country, you have no one to blame but yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why cant liberals just be gratefully that Reagan came along and today they are not slaves to the communist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because being slaves to multi-national corporations is infinitely worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously know little about the true nature of communism, Joe.  I suggest you read up on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and get back to me about how working for a big corporation is so much worse than living under the thumb of communism.
Click to expand...


Pol Pot had little to do with communism and more to do with a people being driven mad by decades of war and the complete devaluation of human life. 

You see, every time you guys point to a "communism bad" story, it's almost alway at the end of a long civil war or invasion where the winners take it out on the losers.  

This is also known as "history".  

The problem isn't communism here, its' "Homo Sapiens"


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because being slaves to multi-national corporations is infinitely worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously know little about the true nature of communism, Joe.  I suggest you read up on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and get back to me about how working for a big corporation is so much worse than living under the thumb of communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism and more to do with a people being driven mad by decades of war and the complete devaluation of human life.
> 
> You see, every time you guys point to a "communism bad" story, it's almost alway at the end of a long civil war or invasion where the winners take it out on the losers.
> 
> This is also known as "history".
> 
> The problem isn't communism here, its' "Homo Sapiens"
Click to expand...


Pol Pot had little to do with communism?  Once again you prove how little you know about "history".  Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were hardcore communists...they ran EVERYTHING in people's lives...from where they could live...to what jobs they could have...to who they could marry!  If if you didn't toe the line with their rules and regulations you got a one way trip to "the killing fields".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously know little about the true nature of communism, Joe.  I suggest you read up on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and get back to me about how working for a big corporation is so much worse than living under the thumb of communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism and more to do with a people being driven mad by decades of war and the complete devaluation of human life.
> 
> You see, every time you guys point to a "communism bad" story, it's almost alway at the end of a long civil war or invasion where the winners take it out on the losers.
> 
> This is also known as "history".
> 
> The problem isn't communism here, its' "Homo Sapiens"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism?  Once again you prove how little you know about "history".  Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were hardcore communists...they ran EVERYTHING in people's lives...from where they could live...to what jobs they could have...to who they could marry!  If if you didn't toe the line with their rules and regulations you got a one way trip to "the killing fields".
Click to expand...


JoeB has to be a paid poster because no one can possibly be that stupid and dishonest in real life


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because being slaves to multi-national corporations is infinitely worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously know little about the true nature of communism, Joe.  I suggest you read up on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and get back to me about how working for a big corporation is so much worse than living under the thumb of communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism and more to do with a people being driven mad by decades of war and the complete devaluation of human life.
> 
> You see, every time you guys point to a "communism bad" story, it's almost alway at the end of a long civil war or invasion where the winners take it out on the losers.
> 
> This is also known as "history".
> 
> The problem isn't communism here, its' "Homo Sapiens"
Click to expand...


^ Fucking Retard


----------



## Dot Com

Raygun funded terrists. FACT.


----------



## hunarcy

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously know little about the true nature of communism, Joe.  I suggest you read up on Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and get back to me about how working for a big corporation is so much worse than living under the thumb of communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism and more to do with a people being driven mad by decades of war and the complete devaluation of human life.
> 
> You see, every time you guys point to a "communism bad" story, it's almost alway at the end of a long civil war or invasion where the winners take it out on the losers.
> 
> This is also known as "history".
> 
> The problem isn't communism here, its' "Homo Sapiens"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism?  Once again you prove how little you know about "history".  Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were hardcore communists...they ran EVERYTHING in people's lives...from where they could live...to what jobs they could have...to who they could marry!  If if you didn't toe the line with their rules and regulations you got a one way trip to "the killing fields".
Click to expand...


The really ironic thing is that Pol Pot was stopped by the Vietnamese, who had been in a much longer civil war and didn't "take it out" on the Cambodians when they won.

Honestly, why you read Joe is beyond me.  While a stopped clock is right twice a day, he is not.


----------



## thanatos144

Dot Com said:


> Raygun funded terrists. FACT.



You need to look up the definition of fact you lying ass


----------



## Oldstyle

I was a history major in college.  Having Joe lecture others about not knowing history is always good fun since I don't think I've met many people in my long life that know LESS history than Joe does...yet that doesn't stop him from pontificating about the subject.


----------



## hunarcy

thanatos144 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raygun funded terrists. FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to look up the definition of fact you lying ass
Click to expand...


He thinks he's talking about facts, but it seems like that is one of his pillars of religion.  No amount of refutation can change his mind.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

The OP is hardcore revisionist history. No surprise from the hack, Dante. Reagan did not 'raise taxes.' He drastically lowered cumulative taxes more than any president in my lifetime and perhaps in history. Jackass libtards like Dante point to some marginal raises in various taxes (there are literally dozens if not hundreds of various taxes) and pretends that Reagan raised taxes. And he LIES even after this has been undoubtedly shown to him over and over again.

Based on his hack definition of 'raising taxes,' I don't know if there's ever been a president that didn't 'raise taxes.'

Someone tell Dante to change his screen name so that he gets this:

@fuckface


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism?  Once again you prove how little you know about "history".  Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were hardcore communists...they ran EVERYTHING in people's lives...from where they could live...to what jobs they could have...to who they could marry!  If if you didn't toe the line with their rules and regulations you got a one way trip to "the killing fields".



Look, dumbfuck, the Khmer Rogue did not kill thousands of their countrymen because of Marxist theory. 

They killed them because people in the West of the country collaborated with the Americans who slaughtered thousands of people in the east.  

You guys all want to talk about the million or so killed by the Khmer Rouge in the aftermath of the war, but not the 1 Milion Cambodians and 3 million Vietnamese killed by the US during the course of the war. 

Oh, wait. We can't talk about that! Those guys were all heroes!!!!  

You know, we have guys who have PTSD for being in a war zone for a few months... 

Imagine being in one all of your life! 

But, no, it had to be because of Marxism, not a decade of brutalization!


----------



## JoeB131

hunarcy said:


> [
> 
> The really ironic thing is that Pol Pot was stopped by the Vietnamese, who had been in a much longer civil war and didn't "take it out" on the Cambodians when they won.
> 
> Honestly, why you read Joe is beyond me.  While a stopped clock is right twice a day, he is not.



The Vietnamese fought an occupation of Cambodia for a decade after deposing Pol Pot. 100,00 additional civilians were killed, in addition to the famine of 1979, which probably killed hundreds of thousands of more. (Apparently, the Vietnamese didn't think feeding the Cambodians was a big priority. 

But wait, so you are praising the Communist Vietnamese because they were less brutal than the Communist Cambodians?


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Pol Pot had little to do with communism?  Once again you prove how little you know about "history".  Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were hardcore communists...they ran EVERYTHING in people's lives...from where they could live...to what jobs they could have...to who they could marry!  If if you didn't toe the line with their rules and regulations you got a one way trip to "the killing fields".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, dumbfuck, the Khmer Rogue did not kill thousands of their countrymen because of Marxist theory.
> 
> They killed them because people in the West of the country collaborated with the Americans who slaughtered thousands of people in the east.
> 
> You guys all want to talk about the million or so killed by the Khmer Rouge in the aftermath of the war, but not the 1 Milion Cambodians and 3 million Vietnamese killed by the US during the course of the war.
> 
> Oh, wait. We can't talk about that! Those guys were all heroes!!!!
> 
> You know, we have guys who have PTSD for being in a war zone for a few months...
> 
> Imagine being in one all of your life!
> 
> But, no, it had to be because of Marxism, not a decade of brutalization!
Click to expand...


do you ever stop whining and crying to yourself?
 nobody got killed because of rabid Marxist theory? it all had to be the fault of the mean ol West?

you are simply a moron making a fool of yourself every day here with your unrepentent apologistic left-wing nonsense


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> I was a history major in college.  Having Joe lecture others about not knowing history is always good fun since I don't think I've met many people in my long life that know LESS history than Joe does...yet that doesn't stop him from pontificating about the subject.



I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".  

So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall. 

Interesting to see how legends are born.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The really ironic thing is that Pol Pot was stopped by the Vietnamese, who had been in a much longer civil war and didn't "take it out" on the Cambodians when they won.
> 
> Honestly, why you read Joe is beyond me.  While a stopped clock is right twice a day, he is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnamese fought an occupation of Cambodia for a decade after deposing Pol Pot. 100,00 additional civilians were killed, in addition to the famine of 1979, which probably killed hundreds of thousands of more. (Apparently, the Vietnamese didn't think feeding the Cambodians was a big priority.
> 
> But wait, so you are praising the Communist Vietnamese because they were less brutal than the Communist Cambodians?
Click to expand...


they were both brutal left-wing regimes


NOTHING has killed more than left-wing ideology in the last 100 years; nothing. certainly not capitalism; or Christianity


----------



## JoeB131

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The OP is hardcore revisionist history. No surprise from the hack, Dante. Reagan did not 'raise taxes.' He drastically lowered cumulative taxes more than any president in my lifetime and perhaps in history. Jackass libtards like Dante point to some marginal raises in various taxes (there are literally dozens if not hundreds of various taxes) and pretends that Reagan raised taxes. And he LIES even after this has been undoubtedly shown to him over and over again.
> 
> Based on his hack definition of 'raising taxes,' I don't know if there's ever been a president that didn't 'raise taxes.'



Actually, Reagan raised taxes on the working class while cutting them on the rich. 

First, his reform of Social Security raised the tax rate for Social security from 10% to 12%.  he also raised Medicare taxes from 2% to 3%.  He also made Social Security benefits taxable. 

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, his "Tax Reform" of 1986 eliminated a lot of the middle class tax deductions 

Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The really ironic thing is that Pol Pot was stopped by the Vietnamese, who had been in a much longer civil war and didn't "take it out" on the Cambodians when they won.
> 
> Honestly, why you read Joe is beyond me.  While a stopped clock is right twice a day, he is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnamese fought an occupation of Cambodia for a decade after deposing Pol Pot. 100,00 additional civilians were killed, in addition to the famine of 1979, which probably killed hundreds of thousands of more. (Apparently, the Vietnamese didn't think feeding the Cambodians was a big priority.
> 
> But wait, so you are praising the Communist Vietnamese because they were less brutal than the Communist Cambodians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were both brutal left-wing regimes
> 
> NOTHING has killed more than left-wing ideology in the last 100 years; nothing. certainly not capitalism; or Christianity
Click to expand...


Um, yeah, your math is up there with your spelling, eh?


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is hardcore revisionist history. No surprise from the hack, Dante. Reagan did not 'raise taxes.' He drastically lowered cumulative taxes more than any president in my lifetime and perhaps in history. Jackass libtards like Dante point to some marginal raises in various taxes (there are literally dozens if not hundreds of various taxes) and pretends that Reagan raised taxes. And he LIES even after this has been undoubtedly shown to him over and over again.
> 
> Based on his hack definition of 'raising taxes,' I don't know if there's ever been a president that didn't 'raise taxes.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Reagan raised taxes on the working class while cutting them on the rich.
> 
> First, his reform of Social Security raised the tax rate for Social security from 10% to 12%.  he also raised Medicare taxes from 2% to 3%.  He also made Social Security benefits taxable.
> 
> Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Second, his "Tax Reform" of 1986 eliminated a lot of the middle class tax deductions
> 
> Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%
Click to expand...


things were better in the Reagan years than they are now under obama

 things were better under both Bush Presidents too than they are under obama

true story


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnamese fought an occupation of Cambodia for a decade after deposing Pol Pot. 100,00 additional civilians were killed, in addition to the famine of 1979, which probably killed hundreds of thousands of more. (Apparently, the Vietnamese didn't think feeding the Cambodians was a big priority.
> 
> But wait, so you are praising the Communist Vietnamese because they were less brutal than the Communist Cambodians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were both brutal left-wing regimes
> 
> NOTHING has killed more than left-wing ideology in the last 100 years; nothing. certainly not capitalism; or Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, your math is up there with your spelling, eh?
Click to expand...




um; yea; but you know it's true


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> [
> 
> things were better in the Reagan years than they are now under obama
> 
> things were better under both Bush Presidents too than they are under obama
> 
> true story
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites



That's questionable. 

The highest unemployment ever got Under Obama was 10%.  It got to 11.3% under Ray-gun.  

Also, middle class incomes sharply declined under reagan and never really came back. so a lot of the problems we are STILL having started on his watch.


----------



## Toro

Communism killed tens of millions due to the forced collectivization of production. That happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Today, North Korea cannot feed itself whereas South Korea has emerged as a vibrant and wealthy economy. 

Pol Pot specifically targeted killing whole swaths of the population because in their Marxist ideology, they had to exterminate the educated and land owning elite so that they could start at time zero (literally) to build a Marxist paradise.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> things were better in the Reagan years than they are now under obama
> 
> things were better under both Bush Presidents too than they are under obama
> 
> true story
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's questionable.
> 
> The highest unemployment ever got Under Obama was 10%.  It got to 11.3% under Ray-gun.
> 
> Also, middle class incomes sharply declined under reagan and never really came back. so a lot of the problems we are STILL having started on his watch.
Click to expand...


Reagan "inherited" a mess from Carter

 Reagan "cleaned up" after Carter "drove the car off the cliff"


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Communism killed tens of millions due to the forced collectivization of production. That happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Today, North Korea cannot feed itself whereas South Korea has emerged as a vibrant and wealthy economy.



While conceding that force collectivization is generally a bad idea, blaming it for human rights violations is a bit disingenous- in all three of those countries, there had been years of war that had desensitized them. China, for instance, had been in a nearly constant state of internal warfare and external invasion since 1911, when the Manchy Dynasty fell.  

I should also point out that China had very bloody civil wars during the Taiping Rebellion of the 19th Century (20-100 million)  fall of the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century (25 million) or the fall of the Yuan dynasty (20 million).  

But, yeah, they would have killed each other over communism if they knew about it back then, too. 

Main reason why NOrth Korea can't feed itself? The land is all mountainous and not really fit for agriculture... But, no, let's blame communism and not the crazy rulers.  




Toro said:


> Pol Pot specifically targeted killing whole swaths of the population because in their Marxist ideology, they had to exterminate the educated and land owning elite so that they could start at time zero (literally) to build a Marxist paradise.



But who did the actual exterminating, guy?  Pol Pot didn't kill all those folks by his lonesome. Those folks were killed by a population that had been brutalized by a decade of warfare. 

Also, interesting thing, that you guys will go on and on about the Cambodian genocide, but never mention the genocide in Nigeria, which killed just as many.

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The sad commentary is that as human beings, we need very little provocation to kill each other.


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> things were better in the Reagan years than they are now under obama
> 
> things were better under both Bush Presidents too than they are under obama
> 
> true story
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's questionable.
> 
> The highest unemployment ever got Under Obama was 10%.  It got to 11.3% under Ray-gun.
> 
> Also, middle class incomes sharply declined under reagan and never really came back. so a lot of the problems we are STILL having started on his watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan "inherited" a mess from Carter
> 
> Reagan "cleaned up" after Carter "drove the car off the cliff"
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
Click to expand...


Actually, more like Reagan hit the accelarator like Thelma an Louise... 

Reagan considered it more important to control inflation than to reduce unemployment, which is why unemployment went from 7.4 when he was elected to 11.3% at its height in 1983, and then dropped down to 7.2% when he was re-elected, and everyone said he was a "genius".


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism killed tens of millions due to the forced collectivization of production. That happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Today, North Korea cannot feed itself whereas South Korea has emerged as a vibrant and wealthy economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While conceding that force collectivization is generally a bad idea, blaming it for human rights violations is a bit disingenous- in all three of those countries, there had been years of war that had desensitized them. China, for instance, had been in a nearly constant state of internal warfare and external invasion since 1911, when the Manchy Dynasty fell.
> 
> I should also point out that China had very bloody civil wars during the Taiping Rebellion of the 19th Century (20-100 million)  fall of the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century (25 million) or the fall of the Yuan dynasty (20 million).
> 
> But, yeah, they would have killed each other over communism if they knew about it back then, too.
> 
> Main reason why NOrth Korea can't feed itself? The land is all mountainous and not really fit for agriculture... But, no, let's blame communism and not the crazy rulers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pol Pot specifically targeted killing whole swaths of the population because in their Marxist ideology, they had to exterminate the educated and land owning elite so that they could start at time zero (literally) to build a Marxist paradise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who did the actual exterminating, guy?  Pol Pot didn't kill all those folks by his lonesome. Those folks were killed by a population that had been brutalized by a decade of warfare.
> 
> Also, interesting thing, that you guys will go on and on about the Cambodian genocide, but never mention the genocide in Nigeria, which killed just as many.
> 
> List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The sad commentary is that as human beings, we need very little provocation to kill each other.
Click to expand...


Nobody argued that genocide only occurs under communism, but communism has caused genocide because of its ideology. That populations have been brutalized and its leaders inured to it doesn't change the fact the communists thought it necessary to wipe out a population to implement their ideology, or when they implemented their ideology, it wiped out millions of people because of their ideology. 

NK can't feed itself not because its mountainous. It's because they can't produce anything of any value that anyone wants to trade for food. 

In the USSR, the most productive parts of farming in the Ukraine were the small plots of land farmers owned outside of the collectivized farms. Production was 4x to 5x higher than on the state-run farms.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism killed tens of millions due to the forced collectivization of production. That happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Today, North Korea cannot feed itself whereas South Korea has emerged as a vibrant and wealthy economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While conceding that force collectivization is generally a bad idea, blaming it for human rights violations is a bit disingenous- in all three of those countries, there had been years of war that had desensitized them. China, for instance, had been in a nearly constant state of internal warfare and external invasion since 1911, when the Manchy Dynasty fell.
> 
> I should also point out that China had very bloody civil wars during the Taiping Rebellion of the 19th Century (20-100 million)  fall of the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century (25 million) or the fall of the Yuan dynasty (20 million).
> 
> But, yeah, they would have killed each other over communism if they knew about it back then, too.
> 
> Main reason why NOrth Korea can't feed itself? The land is all mountainous and not really fit for agriculture... But, no, let's blame communism and not the crazy rulers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pol Pot specifically targeted killing whole swaths of the population because in their Marxist ideology, they had to exterminate the educated and land owning elite so that they could start at time zero (literally) to build a Marxist paradise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who did the actual exterminating, guy?  Pol Pot didn't kill all those folks by his lonesome. Those folks were killed by a population that had been brutalized by a decade of warfare.
> 
> Also, interesting thing, that you guys will go on and on about the Cambodian genocide, but never mention the genocide in Nigeria, which killed just as many.
> 
> List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The sad commentary is that as human beings, we need very little provocation to kill each other.
Click to expand...


The preceding was brought to you by JoeB, a Paid Poster, Communist Cheerleader and Marxist apologist


----------



## Camp

Reagan played a major role in the creation of modern day terrorism. He negotiated with terrorist and their supporteres, he did business deals with them and he used terrorist and terrorist acts to implement his policies. When terrorist targeted Americans he gave weak and even non-existant responses and allowed acts of terrorism to become accepted tactics on a global scale. 

IRAN/CONTRA
 Incident -Oct, 28 1982

A report written by former Assistant Attorney General, New York, Reed Brody details an incident of  Contra kiddnapping of Catholic activist Ricardo Bustillo and his five children from their home in El Jacaro, Nicaragua. The children were found the next day, murdered and mutilated. The father was also found murdered at a separtate location.

SOURCE - Los Angleles Times, March 8, 1985


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Reagan played a major role in the creation of modern day terrorism. He negotiated with terrorist and their supporteres, he did business deals with them and he used terrorist and terrorist acts to implement his policies. When terrorist targeted Americans he gave weak and even non-existant responses and allowed acts of terrorism to become accepted tactics on a global scale.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> Incident -Oct, 28 1982
> 
> A report written by former Assistant Attorney General, New York, Reed Brody details an incident of  Contra kiddnapping of Catholic activist Ricardo Bustillo and his five children from their home in El Jacaro, Nicaragua. The children were found the next day, murdered and mutilated. The father was also found murdered at a separtate location.
> 
> SOURCE - Los Angleles Times, March 8, 1985



Lying fuck

U.S. bombs Libya ? History.com This Day in History ? 4/14/1986


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> Reagan played a major role in the creation of modern day terrorism. He negotiated with terrorist and their supporteres, he did business deals with them and he used terrorist and terrorist acts to implement his policies. When terrorist targeted Americans he gave weak and even non-existant responses and allowed acts of terrorism to become accepted tactics on a global scale.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> Incident -Oct, 28 1982
> 
> A report written by former Assistant Attorney General, New York, Reed Brody details an incident of  Contra kiddnapping of Catholic activist Ricardo Bustillo and his five children from their home in El Jacaro, Nicaragua. The children were found the next day, murdered and mutilated. The father was also found murdered at a separtate location.
> 
> SOURCE - Los Angleles Times, March 8, 1985





yea Reagan also raised taxes and spent too much

well he WAS  Democrat for a long time you moron

 i guess old habits die hard

 love the way you losers are still ranting bout Reagan more than 30 years later and pretend a whole class of people didnt exist that supported his policies; the Reagan democrats


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> Reagan played a major role in the creation of modern day terrorism.


No, he played a major role in the creation of modern day liberalism. He drove them insane since they opposed everything he did but was largely successful. Who knows how successful had he had some help from the left? The liberals never did regain composure and to this day haven't progressed much beyond raving lunatics drooling on their "I Hate The Right" baby bibs.

Thank you Gipper, may your soul rest in peace.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan played a major role in the creation of modern day terrorism. He negotiated with terrorist and their supporteres, he did business deals with them and he used terrorist and terrorist acts to implement his policies. When terrorist targeted Americans he gave weak and even non-existant responses and allowed acts of terrorism to become accepted tactics on a global scale.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> Incident -Oct, 28 1982
> 
> A report written by former Assistant Attorney General, New York, Reed Brody details an incident of  Contra kiddnapping of Catholic activist Ricardo Bustillo and his five children from their home in El Jacaro, Nicaragua. The children were found the next day, murdered and mutilated. The father was also found murdered at a separtate location.
> 
> SOURCE - Los Angleles Times, March 8, 1985
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying fuck
> 
> U.S. bombs Libya ? History.com This Day in History ? 4/14/1986
Click to expand...


Where is the lie? I alleged he made a weak responses. The bombing of Libya was a weak response in my opinion and if folks read your link, most will probably agree. It killed Qadaffi's infant daughter. Didn't kill Qadaffi. Now, what Qadaffi did about killing his infant daughter, that was a fucking response. Merry Christmas.


----------



## Camp

Boland Amendment

On Dec. 21, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed the Boland Amendment which forbade the use of Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency funds to finance the Contra's and any operations against the nation of Nicaragua.

IRAN/CONTRA
INCIDENT - April 15, 1985

Contra forces entered the town of Kurka Hill, Nicaragua and preceded to blow up the school with hand granades. They broke into homes searching for food, money and valuables. During the raid, a young girl was taken from her mothers arms as the father looked on. The daughter and father were murdered. The mother survived her wounds.

SOURCE - Philadelphia Daily News  Feb. 19, 1986


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> Boland Amendment
> 
> On Dec. 21, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed the Boland Amendment which forbade the use of Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency funds to finance the Contra's and any operations against the nation of Nicaragua.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> INCIDENT - April 15, 1985
> 
> Contra forces entered the town of Kurka Hill, Nicaragua and preceded to blow up the school with hand granades. They broke into homes searching for food, money and valuables. During the raid, a young girl was taken from her mothers arms as the father looked on. The daughter and father were murdered. The mother survived her wounds.
> 
> SOURCE - Philadelphia Daily News  Feb. 19, 1986


And you know Reagan was in on it? Show us.

And did you know that the Soviets were doing a lot of funding of arms to spread communism, which is why the US got involved in the first place. Of course the real proplem is that Reagan fought against communism and the left will never forgive him for it.


----------



## Camp

Iceweasel said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boland Amendment
> 
> On Dec. 21, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed the Boland Amendment which forbade the use of Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency funds to finance the Contra's and any operations against the nation of Nicaragua.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> INCIDENT - April 15, 1985
> 
> Contra forces entered the town of Kurka Hill, Nicaragua and preceded to blow up the school with hand granades. They broke into homes searching for food, money and valuables. During the raid, a young girl was taken from her mothers arms as the father looked on. The daughter and father were murdered. The mother survived her wounds.
> 
> SOURCE - Philadelphia Daily News  Feb. 19, 1986
> 
> 
> 
> And you know Reagan was in on it? Show us.
> 
> And did you know that the Soviets were doing a lot of funding of arms to spread communism, which is why the US got involved in the first place. Of course the real proplem is that Reagan fought against communism and the left will never forgive him for it.
Click to expand...


What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.

 What the fuck does the Soviets being evil monsters have to do with it? What are you saying, because the Soviets were doing it  Reagan was allowed to ignore the Constitution and conduct an illegal and secret war? Why, because you liked his economic policies or tax policies?

Want to change the subject? We could talk about how the stupid old man forbade US Marines protecting a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a combat zone, to load or even carry ammunition. Four dead in Benghazi, how about 250 dead Marines because Marine force security and sentries were ordered not to carry loaded weapons by some dip shit actor President.


----------



## Meathead

Iceweasel said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan played a major role in the creation of modern day terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he played a major role in the creation of modern day liberalism. He drove them insane since they opposed everything he did but was largely successful. Who knows how successful had he had some help from the left? The liberals never did regain composure and to this day haven't progressed much beyond raving lunatics drooling on their "I Hate The Right" baby bibs.
> 
> Thank you Gipper, may your soul rest in peace.
Click to expand...

Amen!

The pathology of the left speaks volumes.


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.


So your evidence is that he was president. Go figure. It's good to hear a liberal say that the Democrat congress was responsible for the Iraq and Afghan wars though.


> What the fuck does the Soviets being evil monsters have to do with it? What are you saying, because the Soviets were doing it  Reagan was allowed to ignore the Constitution and conduct an illegal and secret war? Why, because you liked his economic policies or tax policies?
> 
> Want to change the subject? We could talk about how the stupid old man forbade US Marines protecting a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a combat zone, to load or even carry ammunition. Four dead in Benghazi, how about 250 dead Marines because Marine force security and sentries were ordered not to carry loaded weapons by some dip shit actor President.


Soviets arming communists has everything to do with it and you're the one trying to change the subject.


----------



## editec

Toro said:


> Communism killed tens of millions due to the forced collectivization of production. That happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Today, North Korea cannot feed itself whereas South Korea has emerged as a vibrant and wealthy economy.
> 
> Pol Pot specifically targeted killing whole swaths of the population because in their Marxist ideology, they had to exterminate the educated and land owning elite so that they could start at time zero (literally) to build a Marxist paradise.



Yup.

POL POT was clearly a communist lunatic, as was Stalin, and Mao.

STill none of that changes the fact that Reagan was not the heroic conservative most of todays j_ohnny come lately conservatives_ think he was.

Joe point out the obvious TAX INCREASES he imposed on the working classes.

_Facts is facts._


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major in college.  Having Joe lecture others about not knowing history is always good fun since I don't think I've met many people in my long life that know LESS history than Joe does...yet that doesn't stop him from pontificating about the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".
> 
> So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall.
> 
> Interesting to see how legends are born.
Click to expand...


Joe baloney was a history major, and feels that gives him the cred to declare that not only do conservatives think Reagan was perfect, that he an he alone by making one speech forced the USSR into collapsing.

Joe, you are a joke. No one thinks Reagan was perfect.  No one thinks the speech at the wall, in and of itself forced the USSR into collapse. Your strawman arguments are just plain stupid.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boland Amendment
> 
> On Dec. 21, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed the Boland Amendment which forbade the use of Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency funds to finance the Contra's and any operations against the nation of Nicaragua.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> INCIDENT - April 15, 1985
> 
> Contra forces entered the town of Kurka Hill, Nicaragua and preceded to blow up the school with hand granades. They broke into homes searching for food, money and valuables. During the raid, a young girl was taken from her mothers arms as the father looked on. The daughter and father were murdered. The mother survived her wounds.
> 
> SOURCE - Philadelphia Daily News  Feb. 19, 1986
> 
> 
> 
> And you know Reagan was in on it? Show us.
> 
> And did you know that the Soviets were doing a lot of funding of arms to spread communism, which is why the US got involved in the first place. Of course the real proplem is that Reagan fought against communism and the left will never forgive him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.
> 
> What the fuck does the Soviets being evil monsters have to do with it? What are you saying, because the Soviets were doing it  Reagan was allowed to ignore the Constitution and conduct an illegal and secret war? Why, because you liked his economic policies or tax policies?
> 
> Want to change the subject? We could talk about how the stupid old man forbade US Marines protecting a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a combat zone, to load or even carry ammunition. Four dead in Benghazi, how about 250 dead Marines because Marine force security and sentries were ordered not to carry loaded weapons by some dip shit actor President.
Click to expand...


President's ignoring the wishes of Congress and conducting illegal and secret activities didn't start with Reagan...he simply carried on a long tradition that includes liberal icons like FDR.


----------



## bedowin62

editec said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism killed tens of millions due to the forced collectivization of production. That happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Today, North Korea cannot feed itself whereas South Korea has emerged as a vibrant and wealthy economy.
> 
> Pol Pot specifically targeted killing whole swaths of the population because in their Marxist ideology, they had to exterminate the educated and land owning elite so that they could start at time zero (literally) to build a Marxist paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> POL POT was clearly a communist lunatic, as was Stalin, and Mao.
> 
> STill none of that changes the fact that Reagan was not the heroic conservative most of todays j_ohnny come lately conservatives_ think he was.
> 
> Joe point out the obvious TAX INCREASES he imposed on the working classes.
> 
> _Facts is facts._
Click to expand...


the working classes have it worse under obama than under Republicans; especially under Bush. 

facts is facts

under obama the richer are getting richer AT A FASTER PACE; and the POOR ARE GETTING POORER AT A FASTER PACE than they did under Bush and Republicans

 so if you want to rant about events 30 years ago; that reagan wasnt the heroic figure we hold him as; just know you are witnessing history now; obama is no hero.............but he has "good intentions" ......lol


----------



## Camp

Iceweasel said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.
> 
> 
> 
> So your evidence is that he was president. Go figure. It's good to hear a liberal say that the Democrat congress was responsible for the Iraq and Afghan wars though.
Click to expand...


Gee, you seem to be catching on. Reagan was told by Congress not to get involved with the Contra forces and the war going on in Central America. Proof he was told came in the form of a formal amendment and law passed by Congress called the Bolin Amendment. Can't be any more formal about telling a President not to do something and reminding him of the Constitution and who has war poweres. Put a legal document in front of him and make him sign it. Take pictures, and publish them. Take video and show it on TV news.
Reagan ignored the Constitution, or at least his administration ignored it.

I agree you are correct about the Congress supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They gave approval to President Bush when he requested their approval to conduct wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress gave approval so they share the blame and/or credit.


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major in college.  Having Joe lecture others about not knowing history is always good fun since I don't think I've met many people in my long life that know LESS history than Joe does...yet that doesn't stop him from pontificating about the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".
> 
> So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall.
> 
> Interesting to see how legends are born.
Click to expand...


I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures







Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.


----------



## Iceweasel

editec said:


> POL POT was clearly a communist lunatic, as was Stalin, and Mao.
> 
> STill none of that changes the fact that Reagan was not the heroic conservative most of todays j_ohnny come lately conservatives_ think he was.
> 
> Joe point out the obvious TAX INCREASES he imposed on the working classes.
> 
> _Facts is facts._


Joe is insane. Lowering taxes on earners didn't come out of the pockets of the middle class. Reagan wasn't a conservative? Wow.


----------



## bedowin62

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major in college.  Having Joe lecture others about not knowing history is always good fun since I don't think I've met many people in my long life that know LESS history than Joe does...yet that doesn't stop him from pontificating about the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".
> 
> So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall.
> 
> Interesting to see how legends are born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.
Click to expand...


this has been explained to left-wing dullards repeatedly

 russians killed over 1 million Afghanis
 if you fought them you WERE a freedom fighter

 if you then decided to fly planes into buildings full of innocent civilians you ARE A TERRORIST AT THAT POINT
 what part is too much for a left-wing idiot and dullard to understand?


----------



## Dot Com

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boland Amendment
> 
> On Dec. 21, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed the Boland Amendment which forbade the use of Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency funds to finance the Contra's and any operations against the nation of Nicaragua.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> INCIDENT - April 15, 1985
> 
> Contra forces entered the town of Kurka Hill, Nicaragua and preceded to blow up the school with hand granades. They broke into homes searching for food, money and valuables. During the raid, a young girl was taken from her mothers arms as the father looked on. The daughter and father were murdered. The mother survived her wounds.
> 
> SOURCE - Philadelphia Daily News  Feb. 19, 1986
> 
> 
> 
> And you know Reagan was in on it? Show us.
> 
> And did you know that the Soviets were doing a lot of funding of arms to spread communism, which is why the US got involved in the first place. Of course the real proplem is that Reagan fought against communism and the left will never forgive him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.
> 
> What the fuck does the Soviets being evil monsters have to do with it? What are you saying, because the Soviets were doing it  Reagan was allowed to ignore the Constitution and conduct an illegal and secret war? Why, because you liked his economic policies or tax policies?
> 
> Want to change the subject? We could talk about how the stupid old man forbade US Marines protecting a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a combat zone, to load or even carry ammunition. Four dead in Benghazi, how about 250 dead Marines because Marine force security and sentries were ordered not to carry loaded weapons by some dip shit actor President.
Click to expand...


good post. The Raygun fluffers will find a way to gloss that over no doubt


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know Reagan was in on it? Show us.
> 
> And did you know that the Soviets were doing a lot of funding of arms to spread communism, which is why the US got involved in the first place. Of course the real proplem is that Reagan fought against communism and the left will never forgive him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.
> 
> What the fuck does the Soviets being evil monsters have to do with it? What are you saying, because the Soviets were doing it  Reagan was allowed to ignore the Constitution and conduct an illegal and secret war? Why, because you liked his economic policies or tax policies?
> 
> Want to change the subject? We could talk about how the stupid old man forbade US Marines protecting a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a combat zone, to load or even carry ammunition. Four dead in Benghazi, how about 250 dead Marines because Marine force security and sentries were ordered not to carry loaded weapons by some dip shit actor President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President's ignoring the wishes of Congress and conducting illegal and secret activities didn't start with Reagan...he simply carried on a long tradition that includes liberal icons like FDR.
Click to expand...


Agreed, hell, how far back do we want to go? Don't think political parties have anything to do with it, or centuries.


----------



## bedowin62

Dot Com said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know Reagan was in on it? Show us.
> 
> And did you know that the Soviets were doing a lot of funding of arms to spread communism, which is why the US got involved in the first place. Of course the real proplem is that Reagan fought against communism and the left will never forgive him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.
> 
> What the fuck does the Soviets being evil monsters have to do with it? What are you saying, because the Soviets were doing it  Reagan was allowed to ignore the Constitution and conduct an illegal and secret war? Why, because you liked his economic policies or tax policies?
> 
> Want to change the subject? We could talk about how the stupid old man forbade US Marines protecting a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a combat zone, to load or even carry ammunition. Four dead in Benghazi, how about 250 dead Marines because Marine force security and sentries were ordered not to carry loaded weapons by some dip shit actor President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good post. The Raygun fluffers will find a way to gloss that over no doubt
Click to expand...




lol yea gloss over it. the overeach by left-wing losers like the unhinged idiot here was so bad the ACLU stepped in on the side of the right-wingers


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> Gee you seem to be catching on. Reagan was told by Congress not to get involved with the Contra forces and the war going on in Central America. Proof he was told came in the form of a formal amendment and law passed by Congress called the Bolin Amendment. Can't be any more formal about telling a President not to do something and reminding him of the Constitution and who has war poweres. Put a legal document in front of him and make him sign it. Take pictures, and publish them. Take video and show it on TV news.
> Reagan ignored the Constitution, or at least his administration ignored it.


Gee, you seem to be catching on. You've shifted to "at least his administration.."


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".
> 
> So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall.
> 
> Interesting to see how legends are born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this has been explained to left-wing dullards repeatedly
> 
> russians killed over 1 million Afghanis
> if you fought them you WERE a freedom fighter
> 
> if you then decided to fly planes into buildings full of innocent civilians you ARE A TERRORIST AT THAT POINT
> what part is too much for a left-wing idiot and dullard to understand?
Click to expand...


Great that as a right winger you are willing to connect the FREEDOM FIGHTERS supported and trained by Reagan in Afghanistan turned into the TERRORIST from Afghanistan that attacked us on 9/11. 
Ronald Reagan, father of modern terrorism. Has a ring to it.


----------



## Camp

Iceweasel said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee you seem to be catching on. Reagan was told by Congress not to get involved with the Contra forces and the war going on in Central America. Proof he was told came in the form of a formal amendment and law passed by Congress called the Bolin Amendment. Can't be any more formal about telling a President not to do something and reminding him of the Constitution and who has war poweres. Put a legal document in front of him and make him sign it. Take pictures, and publish them. Take video and show it on TV news.
> Reagan ignored the Constitution, or at least his administration ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you seem to be catching on. You've shifted to "at least his administration.."
Click to expand...


Nah, just don't want to get into that boring argument about what he knew, was he senile, stupid, irrisponsible or did his people just use and abuse him and get over on him or was he genuinely an evil fucker. Those debates never end.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major in college.  Having Joe lecture others about not knowing history is always good fun since I don't think I've met many people in my long life that know LESS history than Joe does...yet that doesn't stop him from pontificating about the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".
> 
> So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall.
> 
> Interesting to see how legends are born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.
Click to expand...


Reagan sure made a monkey out of the Dem's home team the USSR


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's simple really, we just have different heroes. Me and many other admire Reagan as a great President who broke the stranglehold the USSR had on Eastern Europe freeing hundreds of million in the process, and others admire the old USSR and Pol Pot.

it's an unbridgeable gap


----------



## Dot Com

Reagan would be voted-out of "today's Republican" Primaries in the first go- around just like Huntsman was. FACT!!! Huntsman actually had an appeal to high-info voters like me but the low-info, reactionary, rw  voters didn't want anything to do w/ an edumacated repub who worked w/ a sitting POTUS. rw hate


----------



## Dot Com

he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....

But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If he ran today Reagan would win 55 or 56 states.


----------



## bedowin62

Dot Com said:


> Reagan would be voted-out of "today's Republican" Primaries in the first go- around just like Huntsman was. FACT!!! Huntsman actually had an appeal to high-info voters like me but the low-info, reactionary, rw  voters didn't want anything to do w/ an edumacated repub who worked w/ a sitting POTUS. rw hate






YAWN


and in more recent news; obama ran as a moderate when he knew he wasnt; even voted AGAINST RAISING THE DEBT CEILING  as a Senator. it's laughable to watch losers like you whine bout "history revision" when left-wing nutjobs are doing the same thing RIGHT NOW


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's simple really, we just have different heroes. Me and many other admire Reagan as a great President who broke the stranglehold the USSR had on Eastern Europe freeing hundreds of million in the process, and others admire the old USSR and Pol Pot.
> 
> it's an unbridgeable gap



It's not unbridgeable when you leave out the part about those who don't view Reagan as a hero, of admiring the old USSR and Pol Pot. Not everyone believes Reagan had the impact on the downfall of the USSR that you do. I don't know how much, if any, time you have spent in eastern Europe. I have spent lots of time in lots of countries in eastern Europe. Yesterday my home was full of east European's and Russians for a party and celebration of the safe return of a friend via a flight out of Moscow. Not everyone views Reagan the way you do.
Some think his negative impact on terrorism was far more significant than his impact on the fall of the USSR.


----------



## bedowin62

Dot Com said:


> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one



OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bedowin62 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
Click to expand...


Obama served in the 1st Goatherder Battalion


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this has been explained to left-wing dullards repeatedly
> 
> russians killed over 1 million Afghanis
> if you fought them you WERE a freedom fighter
> 
> if you then decided to fly planes into buildings full of innocent civilians you ARE A TERRORIST AT THAT POINT
> what part is too much for a left-wing idiot and dullard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great that as a right winger you are willing to connect the FREEDOM FIGHTERS supported and trained by Reagan in Afghanistan turned into the TERRORIST from Afghanistan that attacked us on 9/11.
> Ronald Reagan, father of modern terrorism. Has a ring to it.
Click to expand...




YAWN
 is it too much to a LWNJ to blame terrorists for terrorism?
 our helping them isnt a reason to rationalization for what they did. in fact it's the opposite

try another idiotic straw man


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama served in the 1st Goatherder Battalion
Click to expand...


----------



## Dot Com

bedowin62 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
Click to expand...


so are you or are you not a raygun fluffer? Are you even old enough?  Judging from your predictable zany posts, I'd say you're about 15 yrs old. Amiright?


----------



## bedowin62

Dot Com said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so are you or are you not a raygun fluffer. Are you even old enough? Judging from your predictable zany posts, I'd say you're about 15 yrs old. Amiright?
Click to expand...


ur wrong leftard; but you should be used to it by now


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple really, we just have different heroes. Me and many other admire Reagan as a great President who broke the stranglehold the USSR had on Eastern Europe freeing hundreds of million in the process, and others admire the old USSR and Pol Pot.
> 
> it's an unbridgeable gap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unbridgeable when you leave out the part about those who don't view Reagan as a hero, of admiring the old USSR and Pol Pot. Not everyone believes Reagan had the impact on the downfall of the USSR that you do. I don't know how much, if any, time you have spent in eastern Europe. I have spent lots of time in lots of countries in eastern Europe. Yesterday my home was full of east European's and Russians for a party and celebration of the safe return of a friend via a flight out of Moscow. Not everyone views Reagan the way you do.
> Some think his negative impact on terrorism was far more significant than his impact on the fall of the USSR.
Click to expand...


We can bridge the gap, once you give up your love and admiration for Soviet Communism


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple really, we just have different heroes. Me and many other admire Reagan as a great President who broke the stranglehold the USSR had on Eastern Europe freeing hundreds of million in the process, and others admire the old USSR and Pol Pot.
> 
> it's an unbridgeable gap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unbridgeable when you leave out the part about those who don't view Reagan as a hero, of admiring the old USSR and Pol Pot. Not everyone believes Reagan had the impact on the downfall of the USSR that you do. I don't know how much, if any, time you have spent in eastern Europe. I have spent lots of time in lots of countries in eastern Europe. Yesterday my home was full of east European's and Russians for a party and celebration of the safe return of a friend via a flight out of Moscow. Not everyone views Reagan the way you do.
> Some think his negative impact on terrorism was far more significant than his impact on the fall of the USSR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can bridge the gap, once you give up your love and admiration for Soviet Communism
Click to expand...


Who said anything about "we". I was giving you advice about your affliction. 

My first exsposure to communism was as a young child living in my immigrant grandparents huge house full of uncles and aunts, parents and siblings. In 1956 that huge house got small. With four separtate living spaces surrounding my grandparents living quarters, it filled up with Hungarian immigrants escaping communist Hungary during the revolution of that year and coming to this country for sanctuary. Some were family and some were strangers with nothing more than a slip of paper with my grandfathers name and address and instructions to find him when they got to New York City.

 My first history book was THE BRIDGE AT ANDAU by James Michener. My family and I have been fighting communism and helping people escape from communism and it's effects for over a half a century. My second cousin is a Cold War MIA, a pilot, lost and still missing from a mission in the area of eastern Europe. So your misunderstanding and insinuation about my admiration for Soviet Communism is a bit incorrect.


----------



## RKMBrown

bedowin62 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".
> 
> So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall.
> 
> Interesting to see how legends are born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this has been explained to left-wing dullards repeatedly
> 
> russians killed over 1 million Afghanis
> if you fought them you WERE a freedom fighter
> 
> if you then decided to fly planes into buildings full of innocent civilians you ARE A TERRORIST AT THAT POINT
> what part is too much for a left-wing idiot and dullard to understand?
Click to expand...


I think the issue was in the transition period were we apparently ignored OBL's crew training here in the states to learn how to fly commercial aircraft into buildings, ignored the active threat to fly planes into buildings, and ignored hijackings for decades by not locking up the cockpit doors.  Course that had nothing to do with dullard partisanship and more a complete lack of intelligence in our intelligence organizations.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dot Com said:


> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one



Uhmm.. you do realize Reagan was a Democrat when he was dodging the draft, and those terrorists were our allies against the russians, and the debt was a small % of GDP at the time, and the taxes raised were for SS and the new Medicaid stuff, thus were not personal income tax but rather increases in the premiums for SS/Medicaid that the prior generations got the discount for... You do realize these very basic facts right?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple really, we just have different heroes. Me and many other admire Reagan as a great President who broke the stranglehold the USSR had on Eastern Europe freeing hundreds of million in the process, and others admire the old USSR and Pol Pot.
> 
> it's an unbridgeable gap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unbridgeable when you leave out the part about those who don't view Reagan as a hero, of admiring the old USSR and Pol Pot. Not everyone believes Reagan had the impact on the downfall of the USSR that you do. I don't know how much, if any, time you have spent in eastern Europe. I have spent lots of time in lots of countries in eastern Europe. Yesterday my home was full of east European's and Russians for a party and celebration of the safe return of a friend via a flight out of Moscow. Not everyone views Reagan the way you do.
> Some think his negative impact on terrorism was far more significant than his impact on the fall of the USSR.
Click to expand...


quite a few actually.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple really, we just have different heroes. Me and many other admire Reagan as a great President who broke the stranglehold the USSR had on Eastern Europe freeing hundreds of million in the process, and others admire the old USSR and Pol Pot.
> 
> it's an unbridgeable gap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unbridgeable when you leave out the part about those who don't view Reagan as a hero, of admiring the old USSR and Pol Pot. Not everyone believes Reagan had the impact on the downfall of the USSR that you do. I don't know how much, if any, time you have spent in eastern Europe. I have spent lots of time in lots of countries in eastern Europe. Yesterday my home was full of east European's and Russians for a party and celebration of the safe return of a friend via a flight out of Moscow. Not everyone views Reagan the way you do.
> Some think his negative impact on terrorism was far more significant than his impact on the fall of the USSR.
Click to expand...



theres quite many that feel that way actually.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so are you or are you not a raygun fluffer? Are you even old enough?  Judging from your predictable zany posts, I'd say you're about 15 yrs old. Amiright?
Click to expand...


amen to that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.
> 
> 
> 
> So your evidence is that he was president. Go figure. It's good to hear a liberal say that the Democrat congress was responsible for the Iraq and Afghan wars though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, you seem to be catching on. Reagan was told by Congress not to get involved with the Contra forces and the war going on in Central America. Proof he was told came in the form of a formal amendment and law passed by Congress called the Bolin Amendment. Can't be any more formal about telling a President not to do something and reminding him of the Constitution and who has war poweres. Put a legal document in front of him and make him sign it. Take pictures, and publish them. Take video and show it on TV news.
> Reagan ignored the Constitution, or at least his administration ignored it.
> 
> I agree you are correct about the Congress supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They gave approval to President Bush when he requested their approval to conduct wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress gave approval so they share the blame and/or credit.
Click to expand...


wow you're right he does seem to actually be catching on.Reagan sure ingored the constitution alright. Members of congress who gave approval to Bush to invade later said they regretted doing so when they found out later that there were many things contained in the patriot act that they were not allowed to see that violate the constitution.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama served in the 1st Goatherder Battalion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


as always,the resident troll Crusader Retard,retreats to Obama when cornered by facts about reagan deflecting the subject.

Frank is a fucking hypocrite just like Pale Retard was when he was here..Like Pale Retard always did,he worships facts about  Obama not being a  a us citizen but then ignores Jones when Jones talks about Reagans corruption. the troll wants to have it both ways that Jones is right about Obama,but wrong about reagan.sorry troll,cant have it both ways.Jones is either wrong on both counts about Obama and reagan or right on botk counts.

cant have it both ways you want it  fucking hypocrite.Frank  and pale retard give the human race  a bad name with their r closed minded hypocrisy.


----------



## guno

bedowin62 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan would be voted-out of "today's Republican" Primaries in the first go- around just like Huntsman was. FACT!!! Huntsman actually had an appeal to high-info voters like me but the low-info, reactionary, rw  voters didn't want anything to do w/ an edumacated repub who worked w/ a sitting POTUS. rw hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YAWN
> 
> 
> and in more recent news; obama ran as a moderate when he knew he wasnt; even voted AGAINST RAISING THE DEBT CEILING  as a Senator. it's laughable to watch losers like you whine bout "history revision" when left-wing nutjobs are doing the same thing RIGHT NOW
Click to expand...


I thought you guys claimed Obama ran as a socialist. Better get your stories straight


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major in college.  Having Joe lecture others about not knowing history is always good fun since I don't think I've met many people in my long life that know LESS history than Joe does...yet that doesn't stop him from pontificating about the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a history major, too, although at my age, what happened in Cambodia was more of a "Current Event".
> 
> So was Reagan, for that matter, which is why I am always amused by how this "RINO" is recast as this Conservative Paragon who talked the USSR into collapsing by talking to a wall.
> 
> Interesting to see how legends are born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.
Click to expand...


can anybody say draftdodger and mass murderer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank




----------



## natstew

Dot Com said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA didnt serve either;' but in chicago he learned to make a crack pipe from a Pepsi can
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so are you or are you not a raygun fluffer? Are you even old enough?  Judging from your predictable zany posts, I'd say you're about 15 yrs old. Amiright?
Click to expand...


MILITARY SERVICE OF RONALD REAGAN


Ronald Wilson Reagan enrolled in a series of home-study Army Extension Courses on 18 March 1935. After completing 14 of the courses, he enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on 29 April 1937, as a Private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on 25 May 1937.  On June 18 of that year Reagan, who had just moved to Los Angeles to begin his film career, accepted his Officers Commission and was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry.

Lieutenant Reagan was ordered to active duty on 19 April 1942. Due to eyesight difficulties, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. Upon the request of the Army Air Forces (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on 15 May 1942; the transfer was approved on 9 June 1942. He was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, California. Reagan was promoted to First Lieutenant on 14 January 1943 and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. Following this duty, he returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit, and on 22 July 1943 was promoted to Captain.

In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit, Culver City, California on 14 November 1944, where he remained until the end of the war. He was recommended for promotion to Major on 2 February 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year. On 8 September 1945, he was ordered to report to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on 9 December 1945.

While on active duty with the 1st Motion Picture Unit and the 18th Army Air Forces Base Unit, Captain Reagan served as Personnel Officer, Post Adjutant, and Executive Officer. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the Army Air Forces.

Reagans Reserve Commission automatically terminated on 1 April 1953. However, he became Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Armed Forces when he became President on 20 January 1981.

TOP

My Dad didn't serve because they wouldn't take him because he had too many children, but he welded on 'Duck Boats' at Newport Florida Boatyard, the same boats that carried an Uncle to the beaches at Normandy where he was wounded twice while filming the landing. They wouldn't allow him to be in a 'fighting unit' because of an old injury, but allowed him to go ashore armed with a camera.
Draft Dodgers were hard to find those days.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know right? He was a sportscaster just like Bible Spice  & he dodged the Big One (WW II) by making picktures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funding *cough* freedom fighters & looking the other way when they started terrorizing the countryside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this has been explained to left-wing dullards repeatedly
> 
> russians killed over 1 million Afghanis
> if you fought them you WERE a freedom fighter
> 
> if you then decided to fly planes into buildings full of innocent civilians you ARE A TERRORIST AT THAT POINT
> what part is too much for a left-wing idiot and dullard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great that as a right winger you are willing to connect the FREEDOM FIGHTERS supported and trained by Reagan in Afghanistan turned into the TERRORIST from Afghanistan that attacked us on 9/11.
> Ronald Reagan, father of modern terrorism. Has a ring to it.
Click to expand...


Indeed it does.Ronald Reagan,father of modern day shipper of jobs overseas has a big ring to it as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> he was a draft dodgin', terrist armin, debt triplin', tax raisin', etc....etc... etc....
> 
> But the Right idolizes him  They really need to find someone else to idolize BUT they know and, more importantly, we know they'd have to go back 50+ yrs to find one



thats one great man to admire right there.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Boland Amendment
> 
> On Dec. 21, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed the Boland Amendment which forbade the use of Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency funds to finance the Contra's and any operations against the nation of Nicaragua.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> INCIDENT - April 15, 1985
> 
> Contra forces entered the town of Kurka Hill, Nicaragua and preceded to blow up the school with hand granades. They broke into homes searching for food, money and valuables. During the raid, a young girl was taken from her mothers arms as the father looked on. The daughter and father were murdered. The mother survived her wounds.
> 
> SOURCE - Philadelphia Daily News  Feb. 19, 1986



careful,your making way too much sense for their minds to comprehend.You will override their minds with these pesky little facts that they have have a heart attack.look out especially for Frank to go into meltdown mode knowing he is cornered.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boland Amendment
> 
> On Dec. 21, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed the Boland Amendment which forbade the use of Department of Defense or Central Intelligence Agency funds to finance the Contra's and any operations against the nation of Nicaragua.
> 
> IRAN/CONTRA
> INCIDENT - April 15, 1985
> 
> Contra forces entered the town of Kurka Hill, Nicaragua and preceded to blow up the school with hand granades. They broke into homes searching for food, money and valuables. During the raid, a young girl was taken from her mothers arms as the father looked on. The daughter and father were murdered. The mother survived her wounds.
> 
> SOURCE - Philadelphia Daily News  Feb. 19, 1986
> 
> 
> 
> And you know Reagan was in on it? Show us.
> 
> And did you know that the Soviets were doing a lot of funding of arms to spread communism, which is why the US got involved in the first place. Of course the real proplem is that Reagan fought against communism and the left will never forgive him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "in on it"? He was the President. He was told by the Congress to stay the fuck out of the Contra bullshit (Boland Amendment). Congress decides who we go to war with. Congress decides when to appropriate funds for war.
> 
> What the fuck does the Soviets being evil monsters have to do with it? What are you saying, because the Soviets were doing it  Reagan was allowed to ignore the Constitution and conduct an illegal and secret war? Why, because you liked his economic policies or tax policies?
> 
> Want to change the subject? We could talk about how the stupid old man forbade US Marines protecting a barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a combat zone, to load or even carry ammunition. Four dead in Benghazi, how about 250 dead Marines because Marine force security and sentries were ordered not to carry loaded weapons by some dip shit actor President.
Click to expand...


there they go into denial mode.somehow Reagan is not a mass murderer even though he signed it and ignored congress.

Frank i bet went into meltdown mode when he saw that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism killed tens of millions due to the forced collectivization of production. That happened in the USSR, China and Cambodia. Today, North Korea cannot feed itself whereas South Korea has emerged as a vibrant and wealthy economy.
> 
> Pol Pot specifically targeted killing whole swaths of the population because in their Marxist ideology, they had to exterminate the educated and land owning elite so that they could start at time zero (literally) to build a Marxist paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> POL POT was clearly a communist lunatic, as was Stalin, and Mao.
> 
> STill none of that changes the fact that Reagan was not the heroic conservative most of todays j_ohnny come lately conservatives_ think he was.
> 
> Joe point out the obvious TAX INCREASES he imposed on the working classes.
> 
> _Facts is facts._
Click to expand...


even facts of the newsmedia broadcasting back then in the 1980's  how reagans policys betrayed the middle class are never good enough for them.

pesky facts are something they close their eyes and cover their ears to.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [
> 
> Nobody argued that genocide only occurs under communism, but communism has caused genocide because of its ideology. That populations have been brutalized and its leaders inured to it doesn't change the fact the communists thought it necessary to wipe out a population to implement their ideology, or when they implemented their ideology, it wiped out millions of people because of their ideology.
> 
> NK can't feed itself not because its mountainous. It's because they can't produce anything of any value that anyone wants to trade for food.
> 
> In the USSR, the most productive parts of farming in the Ukraine were the small plots of land farmers owned outside of the collectivized farms. Production was 4x to 5x higher than on the state-run farms.



Yeah, guy, we know you shit your pants at the thought of fairly sharing anything.  

But come on, repeating lame ass Cold War Propaganda most of us didn't really believe during the COld War is kind of silly.


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> [
> 
> Joe baloney was a history major, and feels that gives him the cred to declare that not only do conservatives think Reagan was perfect, that he an he alone by making one speech forced the USSR into collapsing.
> 
> Joe, you are a joke. No one thinks Reagan was perfect.  No one thinks the speech at the wall, in and of itself forced the USSR into collapse. Your strawman arguments are just plain stupid.



well, frankly, I have yet to hear one of you Wingnuts tell me what Reagan did do to hasten the collapse of the USSR.  

I mean, you mealy mouth about how he funded "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, like that strapping Osama Bin Laden chap, but that had nothing to do with the collape of the USSR. (In fact, the COmmunists stayed in power in Kabul for three years longer than they did in Moscow.)  

The reality is that the "REAL" Reagan would be denounced as a RINO today, while you guys have made up this legendary Reagan who was a true, blue conservative.  

Translation "Conservative" means he didn't lose, get impeached, or fail miserably like every other Republican President or Presidential candidate since 1960.


----------



## JoeB131

Iceweasel said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> POL POT was clearly a communist lunatic, as was Stalin, and Mao.
> 
> STill none of that changes the fact that Reagan was not the heroic conservative most of todays j_ohnny come lately conservatives_ think he was.
> 
> Joe point out the obvious TAX INCREASES he imposed on the working classes.
> 
> _Facts is facts._
> 
> 
> 
> Joe is insane. Lowering taxes on earners didn't come out of the pockets of the middle class. Reagan wasn't a conservative? Wow.
Click to expand...


NO, actually, it did.  

Social Security and Medicare Taxes went up by a cummulative 3%.  

Middle Class deductions like Credit Card Interest vanished.  

So did middle class entitlements such as payments to college students with dead parents.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> POL POT was clearly a communist lunatic, as was Stalin, and Mao.
> 
> STill none of that changes the fact that Reagan was not the heroic conservative most of todays j_ohnny come lately conservatives_ think he was.
> 
> Joe point out the obvious TAX INCREASES he imposed on the working classes.
> 
> _Facts is facts._
> 
> 
> 
> Joe is insane. Lowering taxes on earners didn't come out of the pockets of the middle class. Reagan wasn't a conservative? Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, actually, it did.
> 
> Social Security and Medicare Taxes went up by a cummulative 3%.
> 
> Middle Class deductions like Credit Card Interest vanished.
> 
> So did middle class entitlements such as payments to college students with dead parents.
Click to expand...


SS and Medicare ARE PROGRAMS USED BY THE MIDDLE CLASS. They are simply paying for their use of the programs, which is not the same as paying into federal income taxes.  SS is not the same as federal income tax you frigging retard.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Joe baloney was a history major, and feels that gives him the cred to declare that not only do conservatives think Reagan was perfect, that he an he alone by making one speech forced the USSR into collapsing.
> 
> Joe, you are a joke. No one thinks Reagan was perfect.  No one thinks the speech at the wall, in and of itself forced the USSR into collapse. Your strawman arguments are just plain stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, frankly, I have yet to hear one of you Wingnuts tell me what Reagan did do to hasten the collapse of the USSR.
> 
> I mean, you mealy mouth about how he funded "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, like that strapping Osama Bin Laden chap, but that had nothing to do with the collape of the USSR. (In fact, the COmmunists stayed in power in Kabul for three years longer than they did in Moscow.)
> 
> The reality is that the "REAL" Reagan would be denounced as a RINO today, while you guys have made up this legendary Reagan who was a true, blue conservative.
> 
> Translation "Conservative" means he didn't lose, get impeached, or fail miserably like every other Republican President or Presidential candidate since 1960.
Click to expand...


Awe... look at the poor little crybaby whining about the failures of his communist heroes.  Did that mean old Reagan put your daddy out of work?


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe is insane. Lowering taxes on earners didn't come out of the pockets of the middle class. Reagan wasn't a conservative? Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, actually, it did.
> 
> Social Security and Medicare Taxes went up by a cummulative 3%.
> 
> Middle Class deductions like Credit Card Interest vanished.
> 
> So did middle class entitlements such as payments to college students with dead parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SS and Medicare ARE PROGRAMS USED BY THE MIDDLE CLASS. They are simply paying for their use of the programs, which is not the same as paying into federal income taxes.  SS is not the same as federal income tax you frigging retard.
Click to expand...


A tax is a tax. 

And when the surpluses from those taxes are designed to be converted into bonds to pay for General fund activities like those $600 Toilet Seats Ronald Reagan was so fond of lavishing upon military contractors, it's really a substitute for those taxes, isn't it? 

Reagan raised taxes on the Middle Class.   He also increased the lowest tax bracket from 11 to 15%.


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Joe baloney was a history major, and feels that gives him the cred to declare that not only do conservatives think Reagan was perfect, that he an he alone by making one speech forced the USSR into collapsing.
> 
> Joe, you are a joke. No one thinks Reagan was perfect.  No one thinks the speech at the wall, in and of itself forced the USSR into collapse. Your strawman arguments are just plain stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, frankly, I have yet to hear one of you Wingnuts tell me what Reagan did do to hasten the collapse of the USSR.
> 
> I mean, you mealy mouth about how he funded "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, like that strapping Osama Bin Laden chap, but that had nothing to do with the collape of the USSR. (In fact, the COmmunists stayed in power in Kabul for three years longer than they did in Moscow.)
> 
> The reality is that the "REAL" Reagan would be denounced as a RINO today, while you guys have made up this legendary Reagan who was a true, blue conservative.
> 
> Translation "Conservative" means he didn't lose, get impeached, or fail miserably like every other Republican President or Presidential candidate since 1960.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awe... look at the poor little crybaby whining about the failures of his communist heroes.  Did that mean old Reagan put your daddy out of work?
Click to expand...


SOrry, man, after watching the Jihadist that Reagan Armed killing so many Americans and destroying any freedom we had out of fear of them... 

I think I'd rather have the Communists back.  At least you could reason with them.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, actually, it did.
> 
> Social Security and Medicare Taxes went up by a cummulative 3%.
> 
> Middle Class deductions like Credit Card Interest vanished.
> 
> So did middle class entitlements such as payments to college students with dead parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SS and Medicare ARE PROGRAMS USED BY THE MIDDLE CLASS. They are simply paying for their use of the programs, which is not the same as paying into federal income taxes.  SS is not the same as federal income tax you frigging retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A tax is a tax.
> 
> And when the surpluses from those taxes are designed to be converted into bonds to pay for General fund activities like those $600 Toilet Seats Ronald Reagan was so fond of lavishing upon military contractors, it's really a substitute for those taxes, isn't it?
> 
> Reagan raised taxes on the Middle Class.   He also increased the lowest tax bracket from 11 to 15%.
Click to expand...

Did you cheat to get your degree? Cmon admit it. 

Saying a tax is a tax is like saying all living organisms are the same, cockroaches democrats, no difference.

No, paying your SS premiums is not the same as borrowing money for a toilet seat.

No, your accusation about what Reagan did to taxes are all BLATANT LIES.

Here?s the US tax rate on your income for every year since 1913 ? Quartz

Are you capable of telling even one truth?  Or does your communist view require that every single statement coming out of your mouth be a laughable lie?


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, frankly, I have yet to hear one of you Wingnuts tell me what Reagan did do to hasten the collapse of the USSR.
> 
> I mean, you mealy mouth about how he funded "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, like that strapping Osama Bin Laden chap, but that had nothing to do with the collape of the USSR. (In fact, the COmmunists stayed in power in Kabul for three years longer than they did in Moscow.)
> 
> The reality is that the "REAL" Reagan would be denounced as a RINO today, while you guys have made up this legendary Reagan who was a true, blue conservative.
> 
> Translation "Conservative" means he didn't lose, get impeached, or fail miserably like every other Republican President or Presidential candidate since 1960.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe... look at the poor little crybaby whining about the failures of his communist heroes.  Did that mean old Reagan put your daddy out of work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOrry, man, after watching the Jihadist that Reagan Armed killing so many Americans and destroying any freedom we had out of fear of them...
> 
> I think I'd rather have the Communists back.  At least you could reason with them.
Click to expand...


Oh they are back... nothing like a two term limp wrist-ed democrat to bring on the commies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Nobody argued that genocide only occurs under communism, but communism has caused genocide because of its ideology. That populations have been brutalized and its leaders inured to it doesn't change the fact the communists thought it necessary to wipe out a population to implement their ideology, or when they implemented their ideology, it wiped out millions of people because of their ideology.
> 
> NK can't feed itself not because its mountainous. It's because they can't produce anything of any value that anyone wants to trade for food.
> 
> In the USSR, the most productive parts of farming in the Ukraine were the small plots of land farmers owned outside of the collectivized farms. Production was 4x to 5x higher than on the state-run farms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, we know you shit your pants at the thought of fairly sharing anything.
> 
> But come on, repeating lame ass Cold War Propaganda most of us didn't really believe during the COld War is kind of silly.
Click to expand...


JoeB as real a Marxist ad you'll ever meet

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> SS and Medicare ARE PROGRAMS USED BY THE MIDDLE CLASS. They are simply paying for their use of the programs, which is not the same as paying into federal income taxes.  SS is not the same as federal income tax you frigging retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tax is a tax.
> 
> And when the surpluses from those taxes are designed to be converted into bonds to pay for General fund activities like those $600 Toilet Seats Ronald Reagan was so fond of lavishing upon military contractors, it's really a substitute for those taxes, isn't it?
> 
> Reagan raised taxes on the Middle Class.   He also increased the lowest tax bracket from 11 to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you cheat to get your degree? Cmon admit it.
> 
> Saying a tax is a tax is like saying all living organisms are the same, cockroaches democrats, no difference.
> 
> No, paying your SS premiums is not the same as borrowing money for a toilet seat.
> 
> No, your accusation about what Reagan did to taxes are all BLATANT LIES.
> 
> Are you capable of telling even one truth?  Or does your communist view require that every single statement coming out of your mouth be a laughable lie?
Click to expand...


Sorry, man, money going to ANY level of government, whether it be to Social Security to cover those bonds, to state government who had to raise local taxes because federal payments diminished, or the removal of a deduction people had counted on for years-  those are tax increases, and most of them hit the middle class and poor.  

But the important thing was, the Rich got to buy more Dressage HOrses.  Got to have your priorities.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, frankly, I have yet to hear one of you Wingnuts tell me what Reagan did do to hasten the collapse of the USSR.
> 
> I mean, you mealy mouth about how he funded "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, like that strapping Osama Bin Laden chap, but that had nothing to do with the collape of the USSR. (In fact, the COmmunists stayed in power in Kabul for three years longer than they did in Moscow.)
> 
> The reality is that the "REAL" Reagan would be denounced as a RINO today, while you guys have made up this legendary Reagan who was a true, blue conservative.
> 
> Translation "Conservative" means he didn't lose, get impeached, or fail miserably like every other Republican President or Presidential candidate since 1960.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe... look at the poor little crybaby whining about the failures of his communist heroes.  Did that mean old Reagan put your daddy out of work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOrry, man, after watching the Jihadist that Reagan Armed killing so many Americans and destroying any freedom we had out of fear of them...
> 
> I think I'd rather have the Communists back.  At least you could reason with them.
Click to expand...


JoeB misses the Communists.

Wow

What a shocker

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> [
> 
> Oh they are back... nothing like a two term limp wrist-ed democrat to bring on the commies.



Come on, admit it, you Wingnuts miss the Commies.  It was the only time in your lives people trusted you with grown-up decisions.  

Again, I'd like  president who stopped trying to solve everyone else's problems and just worked onsolving ours.  That'd be a novel approach.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Oh they are back... nothing like a two term limp wrist-ed democrat to bring on the commies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, admit it, you Wingnuts miss the Commies.  It was the only time in your lives people trusted you with grown-up decisions.
> 
> Again, I'd like  president who stopped trying to solve everyone else's problems and just worked onsolving ours.  That'd be a novel approach.
Click to expand...


Yeah if you forget the mass graves and wretched poverty and oppression you Commies were great

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

there goes resident troll crusader retard going into meltdown mode as always hating to hear the truth about his cousin he worships.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Oh they are back... nothing like a two term limp wrist-ed democrat to bring on the commies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, admit it, you Wingnuts miss the Commies.  It was the only time in your lives people trusted you with grown-up decisions.
> 
> Again, I'd like  president who stopped trying to solve everyone else's problems and just worked onsolving ours.  That'd be a novel approach.
Click to expand...


the last one  we had that did do just that paid the price for it on nov 22nd 1963.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, frankly, I have yet to hear one of you Wingnuts tell me what Reagan did do to hasten the collapse of the USSR.
> 
> I mean, you mealy mouth about how he funded "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan, like that strapping Osama Bin Laden chap, but that had nothing to do with the collape of the USSR. (In fact, the COmmunists stayed in power in Kabul for three years longer than they did in Moscow.)
> 
> The reality is that the "REAL" Reagan would be denounced as a RINO today, while you guys have made up this legendary Reagan who was a true, blue conservative.
> 
> Translation "Conservative" means he didn't lose, get impeached, or fail miserably like every other Republican President or Presidential candidate since 1960.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe... look at the poor little crybaby whining about the failures of his communist heroes.  Did that mean old Reagan put your daddy out of work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SOrry, man, after watching the Jihadist that Reagan Armed killing so many Americans and destroying any freedom we had out of fear of them...
> 
> I think I'd rather have the Communists back.  At least you could reason with them.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, actually, it did.
> 
> Social Security and Medicare Taxes went up by a cummulative 3%.
> 
> Middle Class deductions like Credit Card Interest vanished.
> 
> So did middle class entitlements such as payments to college students with dead parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SS and Medicare ARE PROGRAMS USED BY THE MIDDLE CLASS. They are simply paying for their use of the programs, which is not the same as paying into federal income taxes.  SS is not the same as federal income tax you frigging retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A tax is a tax.
> 
> And when the surpluses from those taxes are designed to be converted into bonds to pay for General fund activities like those $600 Toilet Seats Ronald Reagan was so fond of lavishing upon military contractors, it's really a substitute for those taxes, isn't it?
> 
> Reagan raised taxes on the Middle Class.   He also increased the lowest tax bracket from 11 to 15%.
Click to expand...


The reaganut worshippers close their eyes to these little pesky facts of course.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

edit out,double post.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Nobody argued that genocide only occurs under communism, but communism has caused genocide because of its ideology. That populations have been brutalized and its leaders inured to it doesn't change the fact the communists thought it necessary to wipe out a population to implement their ideology, or when they implemented their ideology, it wiped out millions of people because of their ideology.
> 
> NK can't feed itself not because its mountainous. It's because they can't produce anything of any value that anyone wants to trade for food.
> 
> In the USSR, the most productive parts of farming in the Ukraine were the small plots of land farmers owned outside of the collectivized farms. Production was 4x to 5x higher than on the state-run farms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, we know you shit your pants at the thought of fairly sharing anything.
> 
> But come on, repeating lame ass Cold War Propaganda most of us didn't really believe during the COld War is kind of silly.
Click to expand...


rofl

IOW "I have nothing, so I whine about something irrelevant."

As usual.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Oh they are back... nothing like a two term limp wrist-ed democrat to bring on the commies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, admit it, you Wingnuts miss the Commies.  It was the only time in your lives people trusted you with grown-up decisions.
> 
> Again, I'd like  president who stopped trying to solve everyone else's problems and just worked onsolving ours.  That'd be a novel approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah if you forget the mass graves and wretched poverty and oppression you Commies were great
Click to expand...


Are you really trying to claim that Tsarist Russia or Warlord Infested China were fucking Disneyland?   

There's a reason why the Communists won in those countries.  The alternatives were generally a lot worse.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Nobody argued that genocide only occurs under communism, but communism has caused genocide because of its ideology. That populations have been brutalized and its leaders inured to it doesn't change the fact the communists thought it necessary to wipe out a population to implement their ideology, or when they implemented their ideology, it wiped out millions of people because of their ideology.
> 
> NK can't feed itself not because its mountainous. It's because they can't produce anything of any value that anyone wants to trade for food.
> 
> In the USSR, the most productive parts of farming in the Ukraine were the small plots of land farmers owned outside of the collectivized farms. Production was 4x to 5x higher than on the state-run farms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, we know you shit your pants at the thought of fairly sharing anything.
> 
> But come on, repeating lame ass Cold War Propaganda most of us didn't really believe during the COld War is kind of silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rofl
> 
> IOW "I have nothing, so I whine about something irrelevant."
> 
> As usual.
Click to expand...


No, guy, you are repeating- uncritically- cold war era propaganda.  

Which maybe just fine if you were PoliticalChic or CrusaderFwank, because mindless 'God I miss the Cold War" slogans are all they have. 

I really kind of expected better of you... but find myself disappointed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, admit it, you Wingnuts miss the Commies.  It was the only time in your lives people trusted you with grown-up decisions.
> 
> Again, I'd like  president who stopped trying to solve everyone else's problems and just worked onsolving ours.  That'd be a novel approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah if you forget the mass graves and wretched poverty and oppression you Commies were great
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to claim that Tsarist Russia or Warlord Infested China were fucking Disneyland?
> 
> There's a reason why the Communists won in those countries.  The alternatives were generally a lot worse.
Click to expand...


I know you're a genuine Communist. And no, nothing is worse than Communism


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah if you forget the mass graves and wretched poverty and oppression you Commies were great
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to claim that Tsarist Russia or Warlord Infested China were fucking Disneyland?
> 
> There's a reason why the Communists won in those countries.  The alternatives were generally a lot worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you're a genuine Communist. And no, nothing is worse than Communism
Click to expand...


NO, actually, there was, because those people CHOSE Communism. 

A wise political science professor once told me, no government endures without the tacit consent of it's people.  

The USSR endured for the reason the British Empire Endured.   For a while, it made sense for the people involved.  The Russian/British got resources and the laundry list of conquered peoples got security and technology and infrastructure they'd have never been able to produce on their own. 

The Tsar was overthrown because he was incompetent. Because he plunged the country into a war it had no business fighting. 

Much the same with China. The Warlords and Kuomotang made people's lives fairly miserable, and the Japanese just made it a little worse.  

Now, here's the funny thing. BOth of those countries have decided that Communism doesn't really work.  And they're right, it doesn't, for reasons a simpleton like you wouldn't understand even after having it explained to you.  

But you know what, they recently voted Stalin the third greatest figure in Russian History. Putin is popular because he's a strong leader in the same mold.  Meanwhile in China, they aren't reading from the Little Red Book, but they still revere Mao the way we revere George Washington.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really trying to claim that Tsarist Russia or Warlord Infested China were fucking Disneyland?
> 
> There's a reason why the Communists won in those countries.  The alternatives were generally a lot worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you're a genuine Communist. And no, nothing is worse than Communism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, actually, there was, because those people CHOSE Communism.
> 
> A wise political science professor once told me, no government endures without the tacit consent of it's people.
> 
> The USSR endured for the reason the British Empire Endured.   For a while, it made sense for the people involved.  The Russian/British got resources and the laundry list of conquered peoples got security and technology and infrastructure they'd have never been able to produce on their own.
> 
> The Tsar was overthrown because he was incompetent. Because he plunged the country into a war it had no business fighting.
> 
> Much the same with China. The Warlords and Kuomotang made people's lives fairly miserable, and the Japanese just made it a little worse.
> 
> Now, here's the funny thing. BOth of those countries have decided that Communism doesn't really work.  And they're right, it doesn't, for reasons a simpleton like you wouldn't understand even after having it explained to you.
> 
> But you know what, they recently voted Stalin the third greatest figure in Russian History. Putin is popular because he's a strong leader in the same mold.  Meanwhile in China, they aren't reading from the Little Red Book, but they still revere Mao the way we revere George Washington.
Click to expand...


The only choice unarmed people get under Communism is: Death or slavery

You keep talking it up though, it says a lot about you


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> The only choice unarmed people get under Communism is: Death or slavery
> 
> You keep talking it up thought, it says a lot about you



Guy, most people did just fine under communism.  They did the same things we did. They went totheir jobs, they went home to their famiies.  I met people from Russia and China, and you know what, all those things we scared ourselves with during the Cold War just weren't true.  

NOw, are they good ways to run a country. Meh, not really.  Are they the Hell on Earth you make it out to be? No, not really.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The only choice unarmed people get under Communism is: Death or slavery
> 
> You keep talking it up thought, it says a lot about you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people did just fine under communism.  They did the same things we did. They went totheir jobs, they went home to their famiies.  I met people from Russia and China, and you know what, all those things we scared ourselves with during the Cold War just weren't true.
> 
> NOw, are they good ways to run a country. Meh, not really.  Are they the Hell on Earth you make it out to be? No, not really.
Click to expand...


You're under 40 aren't you? Because if you are not then you are just full of shit instead of ignorant.


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The only choice unarmed people get under Communism is: Death or slavery
> 
> You keep talking it up thought, it says a lot about you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people did just fine under communism.  They did the same things we did. They went totheir jobs, they went home to their famiies.  I met people from Russia and China, and you know what, all those things we scared ourselves with during the Cold War just weren't true.
> 
> NOw, are they good ways to run a country. Meh, not really.  Are they the Hell on Earth you make it out to be? No, not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're under 40 aren't you? Because if you are not then you are just full of shit instead of ignorant.
Click to expand...


How many people from China do you know/ 

How many people from Russia do you know?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The only choice unarmed people get under Communism is: Death or slavery
> 
> You keep talking it up thought, it says a lot about you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people did just fine under communism.  They did the same things we did. They went totheir jobs, they went home to their famiies.  I met people from Russia and China, and you know what, all those things we scared ourselves with during the Cold War just weren't true.
> 
> NOw, are they good ways to run a country. Meh, not really.  Are they the Hell on Earth you make it out to be? No, not really.
Click to expand...


You're not fooling anyone JoeB, I know you're a Communist and trying to give us your sales pitch. The reality is you Communists are the biggest mass murderers in history because you're truly evil. You murder your own citizens in the tens of millions, that's entire US States worth of people executed.  Evil. Truly fucking evil.

We all know it, Josef

You fooled FDR and the Democrats, but you're not fooling us.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people did just fine under communism.  They did the same things we did. They went totheir jobs, they went home to their famiies.  I met people from Russia and China, and you know what, all those things we scared ourselves with during the Cold War just weren't true.
> 
> NOw, are they good ways to run a country. Meh, not really.  Are they the Hell on Earth you make it out to be? No, not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're under 40 aren't you? Because if you are not then you are just full of shit instead of ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many people from China do you know/
> 
> How many people from Russia do you know?
Click to expand...

Actually quiet a few....I know many times many from old soviet Ukraine seeing as they are family as for Chinese I do know some. Marxism is a cancer and only fools believe otherwise. It doesn't enrich your life is imprisons it .


----------



## bedowin62

NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity

left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The only choice unarmed people get under Communism is: Death or slavery
> 
> You keep talking it up thought, it says a lot about you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most people did just fine under communism.  They did the same things we did. They went totheir jobs, they went home to their famiies.  I met people from Russia and China, and you know what, all those things we scared ourselves with during the Cold War just weren't true.
> 
> NOw, are they good ways to run a country. Meh, not really.  Are they the Hell on Earth you make it out to be? No, not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone JoeB, I know you're a Communist and trying to give us your sales pitch. The reality is you Communists are the biggest mass murderers in history because you're truly evil. You murder your own citizens in the tens of millions, that's entire US States worth of people executed.  Evil. Truly fucking evil.
> 
> We all know it, Josef
> 
> You fooled FDR and the Democrats, but you're not fooling us.
Click to expand...


Uh, you have a deluded view of history. 

The Communists did more of the fighting in World War II than the USSR did.  

There were single battles onthe Eastern front that were bigger than the entire western front. 

For all our accomplishments, the world doesn't rotate around America.


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity
> 
> left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves



Yawn, ho-hum.  

Frankly you guys talking about the Cold War is like a fat old middle aged factory worker talking about that year he was the star running-back on his HS football team.  

It gets boring after a while.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bedowin62 said:


> NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity
> 
> left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves



But it was for their own good! Right, Josef?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity
> 
> left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was for their own good! Right, Josef?
Click to expand...


You mean bullshit numbers that have never been verified and are largely dismissed as propaganda today?


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity
> 
> left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, ho-hum.
> 
> Frankly you guys talking about the Cold War is like a fat old middle aged factory worker talking about that year he was the star running-back on his HS football team.
> 
> It gets boring after a while.
Click to expand...




comical from a moron always crying and pining for the FDR era


you're an idiot engaging in projection


----------



## bedowin62

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity
> 
> left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, ho-hum.
> 
> Frankly you guys talking about the Cold War is like a fat old middle aged factory worker talking about that year he was the star running-back on his HS football team.
> 
> It gets boring after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comical from a moron always crying and pining for the FDR era
> 
> 
> you're an idiot engaging in projection
Click to expand...




you want public works projects like they had 80 years ago

tax rates like they had 60 years ago

union power to be what it was 50 years ago

and you have the gall to accuse others of living in the past?

 you're a joke man


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity
> 
> left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, ho-hum.
> 
> Frankly you guys talking about the Cold War is like a fat old middle aged factory worker talking about that year he was the star running-back on his HS football team.
> 
> It gets boring after a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> comical from a moron always crying and pining for the FDR era
> 
> you're an idiot engaging in projection
Click to expand...


When did I "pine" for the FDR era?  

I just pointed out that when the rich paid their fair share, the country tends to work better.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, ho-hum.
> 
> Frankly you guys talking about the Cold War is like a fat old middle aged factory worker talking about that year he was the star running-back on his HS football team.
> 
> It gets boring after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comical from a moron always crying and pining for the FDR era
> 
> you're an idiot engaging in projection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I "pine" for the FDR era?
> 
> I just pointed out that when the rich paid their fair share, the country tends to work better.
Click to expand...



because you're a narrow-minded dolt. there are hundreds of reasons our economy was better then; actually billions; over one billion reasons just in China

like i say you're a joke


----------



## bedowin62

you're the kind of idiot who whined the rich had way too much back then too; even when the top tax rates were that high. 

why lie to yourself?


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, we know you shit your pants at the thought of fairly sharing anything.
> 
> But come on, repeating lame ass Cold War Propaganda most of us didn't really believe during the COld War is kind of silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rofl
> 
> IOW "I have nothing, so I whine about something irrelevant."
> 
> As usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy, you are repeating- uncritically- cold war era propaganda.
> 
> Which maybe just fine if you were PoliticalChic or CrusaderFwank, because mindless 'God I miss the Cold War" slogans are all they have.
> 
> I really kind of expected better of you... but find myself disappointed.
Click to expand...


Pointing out that collectivization of farms caused the deaths of millions, that Ukrainian private farms were much more productive than state owned farms, and that South Korea is rich while North Korea can't literally feed itself, aren't uncritical Cold War talking points. They are the most basic facts of history. They are why communism has been abandoned everywhere around the world.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [
> 
> Pointing out that collectivization of farms caused the deaths of millions, that Ukrainian private farms were much more productive than state owned farms, and that South Korea is rich while North Korea can't literally feed itself, aren't uncritical Cold War talking points. They are the most basic facts of history. They are why communism has been abandoned everywhere around the world.



Uh, actually, they are. 

South Korea has a great economy because it's heavily subsidized, first by the American government, and then by big corporations that were looking for cheap labor.  

Incidently, you might be getting towards a point when you say things are good when people can enjoy the fruits of their labors.  We even used to do that in this country before the 1%ers managed to fuck that up.


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, ho-hum.
> 
> Frankly you guys talking about the Cold War is like a fat old middle aged factory worker talking about that year he was the star running-back on his HS football team.
> 
> It gets boring after a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comical from a moron always crying and pining for the FDR era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you want public works projects like they had 80 years ago
Click to expand...


Are you talking about the Grand Coulee and Bonneville Dams? If people like you have your way this great country will never do that kind of great stuff again. If we don't do great stuff we will not remain a great country. Following loosers will make this country a looser nation. Not all of us wants to live in Looserdom. We aren't all a bunch of scardy cats who fear the future and progress. All of us aren't stuck in childhood.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> comical from a moron always crying and pining for the FDR era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you want public works projects like they had 80 years ago
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the Grand Coulee and Bonneville Dams? If people like you have your way this great country will never do that kind of great stuff again. If we don't do great stuff we will not remain a great country. Following loosers will make this country a looser nation. Not all of us wants to live in Looserdom. We aren't all a bunch of scardy cats who fear the future and progress. All of us aren't stuck in childhood.
Click to expand...

I prefer looser women for quickies, but I'm not sure that is really relevant to anything, especially in how it pertains to the most successful president of recent American history.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Pointing out that collectivization of farms caused the deaths of millions, that Ukrainian private farms were much more productive than state owned farms, and that South Korea is rich while North Korea can't literally feed itself, aren't uncritical Cold War talking points. They are the most basic facts of history. They are why communism has been abandoned everywhere around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, they are.
> 
> South Korea has a great economy because it's heavily subsidized, first by the American government, and then by big corporations that were looking for cheap labor.
Click to expand...


North Korea is a heavily subsidized economy by the Chinese but its dirt poor, so we know subsidies don't explain it.  South Korea, like the other ASEAN Tigers, experienced the fastest wage growth in the world as it industrialized from an agrarian economy over 30 years. 

But keep spewing out nonsense trying to save face on an anonymous message board!


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> comical from a moron always crying and pining for the FDR era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you want public works projects like they had 80 years ago
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the Grand Coulee and Bonneville Dams? If people like you have your way this great country will never do that kind of great stuff again. If we don't do great stuff we will not remain a great country. Following loosers will make this country a looser nation. Not all of us wants to live in Looserdom. We aren't all a bunch of scardy cats who fear the future and progress. All of us aren't stuck in childhood.
Click to expand...


you're an idiot deluding himself. there was no union labor on those projects; people are buried inside the mountainside still. hundreds died in the shantytown where the workers lived.

if people like YOU get their way it would never happen. who are you trying to fool?


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Pointing out that collectivization of farms caused the deaths of millions, that Ukrainian private farms were much more productive than state owned farms, and that South Korea is rich while North Korea can't literally feed itself, aren't uncritical Cold War talking points. They are the most basic facts of history. They are why communism has been abandoned everywhere around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, they are.
> 
> South Korea has a great economy because it's heavily subsidized, first by the American government, and then by big corporations that were looking for cheap labor.
> 
> Incidently, you might be getting towards a point when you say things are good when people can enjoy the fruits of their labors.  We even used to do that in this country before the 1%ers managed to fuck that up.
Click to expand...


So the reason that South Korea's economy is infinitely better than it's communist neighbor just to the north...is that it's "heavily subsidized"?  Dude, you show yourself to be more of a "noob" with each post you make.  South Korea and North Korea are a PERFECT example of why capitalism works and communism DOESN'T!  You want to know what communism brings?  You get to sit in the dark at night...

http://blog.education.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/04/exploring-earth-at-night/


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTHING has killed more; no ideology or religion; than goldess left-wing ideology in the last 100 years. not Islam, not Christianity
> 
> left-wing nutjobs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it was for their own good! Right, Josef?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean bullshit numbers that have never been verified and are largely dismissed as propaganda today?
Click to expand...


LOL

When you murder so many people on such an unimaginable scale who can say if 20 million is too small or if 60 million is too large, Josef?

My guess is it's over 60 million because that's the kind of guy you hero Stalin was


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Pointing out that collectivization of farms caused the deaths of millions, that Ukrainian private farms were much more productive than state owned farms, and that South Korea is rich while North Korea can't literally feed itself, aren't uncritical Cold War talking points. They are the most basic facts of history. They are why communism has been abandoned everywhere around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, actually, they are.
> 
> South Korea has a great economy because it's heavily subsidized, first by the American government, and then by big corporations that were looking for cheap labor.
> 
> Incidently, you might be getting towards a point when you say things are good when people can enjoy the fruits of their labors.  We even used to do that in this country before the 1%ers managed to fuck that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the reason that South Korea's economy is infinitely better than it's communist neighbor just to the north...is that it's "heavily subsidized"?  Dude, you show yourself to be more of a "noob" with each post you make.  South Korea and North Korea are a PERFECT example of why capitalism works and communism DOESN'T!
Click to expand...


He's not a noob, please don't underestimate our Josef. He's a TRUE BELIEVER and is here to spread the Gospel of Communism until we're all either converted or dead


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [
> 
> North Korea is a heavily subsidized economy by the Chinese but its dirt poor, so we know subsidies don't explain it.  *South Korea, like the other ASEAN Tigers,* experienced the fastest wage growth in the world as it industrialized from an agrarian economy over 30 years.
> 
> But keep spewing out nonsense trying to save face on an anonymous message board!



Um, guy, South Korea isn't a member of ASEAN. 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But again, I think the fact that we spent the 30 years before that dumping BILLIONS of dollars building it up, money that China didn't have to do the same for North Korea, had a lot to do with it.  

Then again, we spend a lot of money building up countries that turn around and take our jobs. Funny how that works.  

Now, all that said, yes, the Kim Dynasty has horribly mismanged their country.  

But here's the funny thing, guess who actually is a Member of ASEAN and doing well? 

Yup, Communist Vietnam.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> LOL
> 
> When you murder so many people on such an unimaginable scale who can say if 20 million is too small or if 60 million is too large, Josef?
> 
> My guess is it's over 60 million because that's the kind of guy you hero Stalin was



If your numbers can't be verified and range anywhere from 20 to 60 million, that makes it questionable all by itself. 

For instance we know EXACTLY how many people Hitler killed in the Holocaust. We know it was 6 million Jews, 3 million Poles and 3 million Slavs, Gypsies, Disabled, HOmosexuals, etc.  We know who was killed, we know what they were killed for.  

Stalin. Well he kiled 60.   no maybe it was 20.  Do I get to count the famines?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> So the reason that South Korea's economy is infinitely better than it's communist neighbor just to the north...is that it's "heavily subsidized"?  Dude, you show yourself to be more of a "noob" with each post you make.  South Korea and North Korea are a PERFECT example of why capitalism works and communism DOESN'T!  You want to know what communism brings?  You get to sit in the dark at night...
> 
> ]



Well, yeah, when you punish a country for making choices you don't like, that happens. 

We just never, ever are going to forive NOrth Korea and CUba for making us look bad.  


But well sign free trade treaties with South Korea and let them totally undermine Ameican jobs and let them import Hyundais into this country.  Yuppers....


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> North Korea is a heavily subsidized economy by the Chinese but its dirt poor, so we know subsidies don't explain it.  *South Korea, like the other ASEAN Tigers,* experienced the fastest wage growth in the world as it industrialized from an agrarian economy over 30 years.
> 
> But keep spewing out nonsense trying to save face on an anonymous message board!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, guy, South Korea isn't a member of ASEAN.
> 
> Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But again, I think the fact that we spent the 30 years before that dumping BILLIONS of dollars building it up, money that China didn't have to do the same for North Korea, had a lot to do with it.
> 
> Then again, we spend a lot of money building up countries that turn around and take our jobs. Funny how that works.
> 
> Now, all that said, yes, the Kim Dynasty has horribly mismanged their country.
> 
> But here's the funny thing, guess who actually is a Member of ASEAN and doing well?
> 
> Yup, Communist Vietnam.
Click to expand...


Vietnam isn't communist.


----------



## JoeB131

Oookay, Now we are getting into "No True Scotsman Fallacy".  



> The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, along with China, Cuba, and Laos, is one of the world's four remaining single-party socialist states officially espousing communism. Its current state constitution, which replaced the 1975 constitution in April 1992, asserts the central role of the Communist Party of Vietnam in all organs of government, politics and society. The General Secretary of the Communist Party performs numerous key administrative and executive functions, controlling the party's national organization and state appointments, as well as setting policy. Only political organizations affiliated with or endorsed by the Communist Party are permitted to contest elections in Vietnam. These include the Vietnamese Fatherland Front and worker and trade unionist parties. 91]



Wow, sounds like Vietnam is Communist to me.


----------



## Toro

Vietnam has a stock market, actively courts private foreign investment, and the low-wage jobs you bitch about leaving for China are now going to Vietnam.

China isn't communist either.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> North Korea is a heavily subsidized economy by the Chinese but its dirt poor, so we know subsidies don't explain it.  *South Korea, like the other ASEAN Tigers,* experienced the fastest wage growth in the world as it industrialized from an agrarian economy over 30 years.
> 
> But keep spewing out nonsense trying to save face on an anonymous message board!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, guy, South Korea isn't a member of ASEAN.
> 
> Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But again, I think the fact that we spent the 30 years before that dumping BILLIONS of dollars building it up, money that China didn't have to do the same for North Korea, had a lot to do with it.
> 
> Then again, we spend a lot of money building up countries that turn around and take our jobs. Funny how that works.
> 
> Now, all that said, yes, the Kim Dynasty has horribly mismanged their country.
> 
> But here's the funny thing, guess who actually is a Member of ASEAN and doing well?
> 
> Yup, Communist Vietnam.
Click to expand...


Commies never admit their failures; it's always someone else's fault


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Vietnam dropped its failed Central Planning economy in favor of free enterprise. When it was JoeB's Workers Paradise it had to IMPORT rice to keep its people from starving to death. Unlike JosefB, it finally realized Communism was a failure and switched to a market farming economy. Guess who is now the second largest EXPORTER of rice on the planet?

Communism = 100% Guaranteed Fail


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> []
> 
> Commies never admit their failures; it's always someone else's fault



I'm not worried about "communism's" failure. 

I'm worried about Capitalism's failure.  The one that left us with underwater mortgages and busted 401K's and the loss of a middle class.  

When Communist China owns us, I have to wonder who is "failing" exactly.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Vietnam dropped its failed Central Planning economy in favor of free enterprise. When it was JoeB's Workers Paradise it had to IMPORT rice to keep its people from starving to death. Unlike JosefB, it finally realized Communism was a failure and switched to a market farming economy. Guess who is now the second largest EXPORTER of rice on the planet?
> 
> Communism = 100% Guaranteed Fail



Again, Vietnam is following China's model.  Let big corporations move their factories in and we'll provide you cheap labor and one morning, you'll find yourself with half your population on welfare and no industrial base. 

It reminds me of Lenin's axiom, "The Capitalist will sell the Communist the rope we use to hang him with."  

Kind of a good description of "Free Trade".


----------



## bedowin62

lol reagan is long gone; all we have now are left-wing nutjobs revising their own history of failure on a daily basis.

 RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS 

isnt "forward progress"

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> Vietnam has a stock market, actively courts private foreign investment, and the low-wage jobs you bitch about leaving for China are now going to Vietnam.
> 
> China isn't communist either.



NO, they are state sponsored capitalism... 

Of course, I remember that under it's original title. 

Fascism. 

So again, totally awesome. Vietnam and China decide, "Hey, well let the Big Western Corporations evade the fair labor laws and environmental laws by letting them set up shop here. We don't give a fuck about our people."  

And now China is threatening Japan with impunity, and we stand there stupidly.  

Ummm... Yeah. 

"The Capitalist will sell the Communist the rope we use to Hang him!"- Vladimir Lenin.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam has a stock market, actively courts private foreign investment, and the low-wage jobs you bitch about leaving for China are now going to Vietnam.
> 
> China isn't communist either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, they are state sponsored capitalism...
> 
> Of course, I remember that under it's original title.
> 
> Fascism.
> 
> So again, totally awesome. Vietnam and China decide, "Hey, well let the Big Western Corporations evade the fair labor laws and environmental laws by letting them set up shop here. We don't give a fuck about our people."
> 
> And now China is threatening Japan with impunity, and we stand there stupidly.
> 
> Ummm... Yeah.
> 
> "The Capitalist will sell the Communist the rope we use to Hang him!"- Vladimir Lenin.
Click to expand...


we have state-sponsored capitalism under obama

 i guess he's a fascist


----------



## bedowin62

obama's brand of crony capitalism is closer to fascism; the Left is right, obama isnt a socialist


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> [quo
> 
> we have state-sponsored capitalism under obama
> 
> i guess he's a fascist



But, but, but....OOOOOOOOOBama!

I love ODS sufferers.  Their lives would be completely empty with Obama to hate.


----------



## bedowin62

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> we have state-sponsored capitalism under obama
> 
> i guess he's a fascist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but....OOOOOOOOOBama!
> 
> I love ODS sufferers.  Their lives would be completely empty with Obama to hate.
Click to expand...




coming from a moron who lives in the past; at least im keeping it current

 you're simply a joke


----------



## bedowin62

a left-wing loser who cries bout Reagan on a daily basis is trying to ridicule me for disliking obama

what an idiot


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> a left-wing loser who cries bout Reagan on a daily basis is trying to ridicule me for disliking obama
> 
> what an idiot



Actually, I voted for Reagan, twice. 

And there were some things I think that he did which were pretty good.  I do think that his modernization of the military was good. I think he strengthened our position internationally and yes, in some aspects, the economy improved on his watch.  

The point I was making here, lost on most of you, is that by the modern standards of the Teabaggers, Reagan would be a RINO and you guys would turn on him the way you've turned on Lugar and Arlen SPectre and a lot of other sensible guys you've drummed out of the party. 

He gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals. Not "Path to Citizenship", outright Amnesty. 

He raised taxes after he cut them. 

He negotiated with terrorists. 

He armed terrorists.

He appointed moderates to the courts. 

He sat down and worked out deals with the Democrats. 

That was the real Reagan. 

What you guys want to talk about is the mythical Reagan who never comprimised his conservative priniciples and personally brought down "Communism" by shouting at the Berlin Wall.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a left-wing loser who cries bout Reagan on a daily basis is trying to ridicule me for disliking obama
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I voted for Reagan, twice.
> 
> And there were some things I think that he did which were pretty good.  I do think that his modernization of the military was good. I think he strengthened our position internationally and yes, in some aspects, the economy improved on his watch.
> 
> The point I was making here, lost on most of you, is that by the modern standards of the Teabaggers, Reagan would be a RINO and you guys would turn on him the way you've turned on Lugar and Arlen SPectre and a lot of other sensible guys you've drummed out of the party.
> 
> He gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals. Not "Path to Citizenship", outright Amnesty.
> 
> He raised taxes after he cut them.
> 
> He negotiated with terrorists.
> 
> He armed terrorists.
> 
> He appointed moderates to the courts.
> 
> He sat down and worked out deals with the Democrats.
> 
> That was the real Reagan.
> 
> What you guys want to talk about is the mythical Reagan who never comprimised his conservative priniciples and personally brought down "Communism" by shouting at the Berlin Wall.
Click to expand...


You're right...he DID give amnesty to illegals as part of a deal he worked out with Tip O'Neal and the Democrats.  Reagan gave amnesty and the Democrats were supposed to strengthen border control.  Guess who lived up to his end of the bargain and who didn't live up to their end?

And yes, Reagan DID appoint moderates to the Supreme Court...just as George H. W. Bush did and George W. Bush did!  The truth is (despite all the bullshit you liberals like to spout about this topic!) Republicans are the ones who have appointed moderates to the Supreme Court while Democrats have ALWAYS appointed liberals to the court.

Reagan did work across the aisle...so did H.W. Bush...so did W....the one who HASN'T worked across the aisle is Barack (elections have consequences!) Obama!

As for taxes?  Overall Reagan cut taxes dramatically.  It's what led to the economic recovery...a concept that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and yourself can't seem to grasp...even after nearly six years of stagnant economic growth!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a left-wing loser who cries bout Reagan on a daily basis is trying to ridicule me for disliking obama
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I voted for Reagan, twice.
> 
> And there were some things I think that he did which were pretty good.  I do think that his modernization of the military was good. I think he strengthened our position internationally and yes, in some aspects, the economy improved on his watch.
> 
> The point I was making here, lost on most of you, is that by the modern standards of the Teabaggers, Reagan would be a RINO and you guys would turn on him the way you've turned on Lugar and Arlen SPectre and a lot of other sensible guys you've drummed out of the party.
> 
> He gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals. Not "Path to Citizenship", outright Amnesty.
> 
> He raised taxes after he cut them.
> 
> He negotiated with terrorists.
> 
> He armed terrorists.
> 
> He appointed moderates to the courts.
> 
> He sat down and worked out deals with the Democrats.
> 
> That was the real Reagan.
> 
> What you guys want to talk about is the mythical Reagan who never comprimised his conservative priniciples and personally brought down "Communism" by shouting at the Berlin Wall.
Click to expand...


JosefB, maybe the biggest fraud and liar who ever posted at USMB


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> []
> 
> Commies never admit their failures; it's always someone else's fault
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not worried about "communism's" failure.
> 
> I'm worried about Capitalism's failure.  The one that left us with underwater mortgages and busted 401K's and the loss of a middle class.
> 
> When Communist China owns us, I have to wonder who is "failing" exactly.
Click to expand...


We have the World's #1 economy and we got there through capitalism. China is growing now-- from Capitalism

Capitalism recently moved 1 billion people out of poverty. I know how much you hate that JosefB. You want to crush people under your heel so they are grateful for the 2 grains of rice you dole out to them but that's just too fucking bad for you

China will never "own" us, that's your nipply schoolgirl fantasy of an unarmed America that is the latest Communist failure

Oh, and go fuck yourself in the process


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a left-wing loser who cries bout Reagan on a daily basis is trying to ridicule me for disliking obama
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I voted for Reagan, twice.
> 
> And there were some things I think that he did which were pretty good.  I do think that his modernization of the military was good. I think he strengthened our position internationally and yes, in some aspects, the economy improved on his watch.
> 
> The point I was making here, lost on most of you, is that by the modern standards of the Teabaggers, Reagan would be a RINO and you guys would turn on him the way you've turned on Lugar and Arlen SPectre and a lot of other sensible guys you've drummed out of the party.
> 
> He gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals. Not "Path to Citizenship", outright Amnesty.
> 
> He raised taxes after he cut them.
> 
> He negotiated with terrorists.
> 
> He armed terrorists.
> 
> He appointed moderates to the courts.
> 
> He sat down and worked out deals with the Democrats.
> 
> That was the real Reagan.
> 
> What you guys want to talk about is the mythical Reagan who never comprimised his conservative priniciples and personally brought down "Communism" by shouting at the Berlin Wall.
Click to expand...




and THAT just scratches the surface.

Here below as well is the real Reagan exposed.

Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans


Liar 
&#8226;Thief 
&#8226;Mass murderer 
&#8226;Supporter of abortion 
&#8226;War criminal 
&#8226; 
&#8226; 

&#8226;Destroyer of freedom 
&#8226;Traitor of the American people 
&#8226;Corporate whore 
&#8226;Destroyer of the environment 

Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration :
         "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

Joe you'll never get anywhere with Crusader Retard.Like clockwork,he just went into meltdown mode when you told the truth about corrupt Ronnie.

The guy has got to be a close cousin of his.He takes things so personally going into rant mode  when you expose his idol like you did.Much more so that the others.

The others may throw childish insults when you expose him,but he takes it to the extremes going into meltdown mode denying reality refusing to look at the facts.


----------



## Meathead

Amazing that Reagan makes some bite down on their pillows 25 years after leaving office. Now that's a tribute to his legacy!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a left-wing loser who cries bout Reagan on a daily basis is trying to ridicule me for disliking obama
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I voted for Reagan, twice.
> 
> And there were some things I think that he did which were pretty good.  I do think that his modernization of the military was good. I think he strengthened our position internationally and yes, in some aspects, the economy improved on his watch.
> 
> The point I was making here, lost on most of you, is that by the modern standards of the Teabaggers, Reagan would be a RINO and you guys would turn on him the way you've turned on Lugar and Arlen SPectre and a lot of other sensible guys you've drummed out of the party.
> 
> He gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals. Not "Path to Citizenship", outright Amnesty.
> 
> He raised taxes after he cut them.
> 
> He negotiated with terrorists.
> 
> He armed terrorists.
> 
> He appointed moderates to the courts.
> 
> He sat down and worked out deals with the Democrats.
> 
> That was the real Reagan.
> 
> What you guys want to talk about is the mythical Reagan who never comprimised his conservative priniciples and personally brought down "Communism" by shouting at the Berlin Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and THAT just scratches the surface.
> 
> Here below as well is the real Reagan exposed.
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
> 
> 
> Liar
> Thief
> Mass murderer
> Supporter of abortion
> War criminal
> 
> 
> 
> Destroyer of freedom
> Traitor of the American people
> Corporate whore
> Destroyer of the environment
> 
> Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration :
> "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
> 
> Joe you'll never get anywhere with Crusader Retard.Like clockwork,he just went into meltdown mode when you told the truth about corrupt Ronnie.
> 
> The guy has got to be a close cousin of his.He takes things so personally going into rant mode  when you expose his idol like you did.Much more so that the others.
> 
> The others may throw childish insults when you expose him,but he takes it to the extremes going into meltdown mode denying reality refusing to look at the facts.
Click to expand...


You're applauding a Genuine Communist you fucking tool


----------



## bedowin62

we got truthers here

 as if his very screen name wasnt enough to convice you of his mental illness; the overuse of the smilies is too much lol!!

what a complete idiot


----------



## bedowin62

actually Reagan's administration was way less corrupt that Clinton's; or obama's.

 left-wing losers overeached so far trying to get Reagan officials that the very left-wing ACLU stepped in on the side of the Reagan officials

 libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> actually Reagan's administration was way less corrupt that Clinton's; or obama's.
> 
> left-wing losers overeached so far trying to get Reagan officials that the very left-wing ACLU stepped in on the side of the Reagan officials
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves



Cool, we get to learn something today. Can you kindly put a name with that claim so we can look it up. Which Clinton administation member(s) got convicted of a crime committed while serving during the Cllinton administration?
There are already bunchs of Reagan folks listed in this thread already. Maybe not all three dozen plus, but some of the main ones.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> we have state-sponsored capitalism under obama
> 
> i guess he's a fascist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but....OOOOOOOOOBama!
> 
> I love ODS sufferers.  Their lives would be completely empty with Obama to hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming from a moron who lives in the past; at least im keeping it current
> 
> you're simply a joke
Click to expand...


as are all you reagan worshippers. yeah your not living in the past,thats why you keep coming on this thread  posting lies about reagan and ignoring the FACTS about the myth concocted by the mainstream media about him great logic there,you dont live in the past,thats why you come here to defend the past cause your in the present.comedy gold.

you reaganut worshippers should start a comedy club. now whos the moron? 

You need to look in the mirror when calling someone a joke. Joe isnt the one ignoring facts running of from posts when cornered refusing to talk about the facts that expose reagans corruption.Now THATS someone who is a joke.

congrats on your hypocrisy as well.

Joe at least doesnt go into meltdown mode about critisem of a president like resident troll Crusader Retard does.  you want to find someone who lives in the past hypocrite,look no further than your fellow worshipper Frank. I have never seen someone who takes it so personal and get so worked up about a president and go   into meltdown mode like he does when people talk bad about Reagan.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually Reagan's administration was way less corrupt that Clinton's; or obama's.
> 
> left-wing losers overeached so far trying to get Reagan officials that the very left-wing ACLU stepped in on the side of the Reagan officials
> 
> libs are losers who lie to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, we get to learn something today. Can you kindly put a name with that claim so we can look it up. Which Clinton administation member(s) got convicted of a crime committed while serving during the Cllinton administration?
> There are already bunchs of Reagan folks listed in this thread already. Maybe not all three dozen plus, but some of the main ones.
Click to expand...


you know that he is going to do this  - when he sees this post dont you? they always retreat and then start talking about soemthing else about reagan saying he saved the economy and stuff like that we they get cornered.

wow,they sure have memory problems,Im sure YOU rememeber how i have said that every president we have had since JFK with the exception of carter,has been more evil and corrupt than the previous one? Ford was easily much worse than carter and myself,you and others have exposed how Reagan was far worse than Carter,and unlike carter,evil and corrupt as well.

i have never denied every president since reagan has been more corrupt and worse than he was,I only have said many times,that at the TIME of his administration,his was the most corrupt of all time as i have proven with that link i have posted hundreds of times just to watch them ignore it.

that just proves what I have been saying ALL along that they only see what they WANT to see the fact they are are just NOW talking about that part of how he had more people in his administration that were corrupt than any other.its the first time i have posted that from the link but i have posted the link HUNDREDS of times,so that proves they never read it and the truth is out that what I have been saying this whole time is true,that they only see what they WANT to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a left-wing loser who cries bout Reagan on a daily basis is trying to ridicule me for disliking obama
> 
> what an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I voted for Reagan, twice.
> 
> And there were some things I think that he did which were pretty good.  I do think that his modernization of the military was good. I think he strengthened our position internationally and yes, in some aspects, the economy improved on his watch.
> 
> The point I was making here, lost on most of you, is that by the modern standards of the Teabaggers, Reagan would be a RINO and you guys would turn on him the way you've turned on Lugar and Arlen SPectre and a lot of other sensible guys you've drummed out of the party.
> 
> He gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals. Not "Path to Citizenship", outright Amnesty.
> 
> He raised taxes after he cut them.
> 
> He negotiated with terrorists.
> 
> He armed terrorists.
> 
> He appointed moderates to the courts.
> 
> He sat down and worked out deals with the Democrats.
> 
> That was the real Reagan.
> 
> What you guys want to talk about is the mythical Reagan who never comprimised his conservative priniciples and personally brought down "Communism" by shouting at the Berlin Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and THAT just scratches the surface.
> 
> Here below as well is the real Reagan exposed.
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
> 
> 
> Liar
> &#8226;Thief
> &#8226;Mass murderer
> &#8226;Supporter of abortion
> &#8226;War criminal
> &#8226;
> &#8226;
> 
> &#8226;Destroyer of freedom
> &#8226;Traitor of the American people
> &#8226;Corporate whore
> &#8226;Destroyer of the environment
> 
> Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration :
> "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
> 
> Joe you'll never get anywhere with Crusader Retard.Like clockwork,he just went into meltdown mode when you told the truth about corrupt Ronnie.
> 
> The guy has got to be a close cousin of his.He takes things so personally going into rant mode  when you expose his idol like you did.Much more so that the others.
> 
> The others may throw childish insults when you expose him,but he takes it to the extremes going into meltdown mode denying reality refusing to look at the facts.
Click to expand...


The link is truthful in what it says exposing all the members in his administration that were corrupt.more so than any other administration.You know they wont be able to come up with more members from the other administrations like you asked Camp,thats a given. 

But as I got done saying,Reagan isnt the most corrupt president EVER ,by any means.every president since then has been more corrupt than he was,compared to the clown we have in office now and Bush before him,Reagan doesnt look so bad.He doesnt look so bad now cause all the toehrs have been even worse expanding what he started.

Thats why people have forgotten so quickly,how bad things really were under Bush because as much as Bush recked the country,Obama has wrecked it far worse expanding what Bush got started.

But at the TIME back then,he sure was the most corrupt ever and there have been a lot of corrupt ones over the decades as well. those two facts cant be disputed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Liberals AND Communists hated Reagan.

Wow

Fucking shocker.

I should "learn" about what a horrible president Reagan was by going to LiberalCommunistsWhoHateReagan.com

That's the true story, none of this feel good stuff about Reagan revitalizing the economy and bringing down Soviet Communism!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JosefB, never in the military, never an Eisenhower Republican, never voted for Reagan, never fired from a job for getting sick.

Just another OFA guy with his "I used to be a Republican" Script and a genuine member of the US Communist Party


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from you frank.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I voted for Reagan, twice.
> 
> And there were some things I think that he did which were pretty good.  I do think that his modernization of the military was good. I think he strengthened our position internationally and yes, in some aspects, the economy improved on his watch.
> 
> The point I was making here, lost on most of you, is that by the modern standards of the Teabaggers, Reagan would be a RINO and you guys would turn on him the way you've turned on Lugar and Arlen SPectre and a lot of other sensible guys you've drummed out of the party.
> 
> He gave Amnesty to 3 million illegals. Not "Path to Citizenship", outright Amnesty.
> 
> He raised taxes after he cut them.
> 
> He negotiated with terrorists.
> 
> He armed terrorists.
> 
> He appointed moderates to the courts.
> 
> He sat down and worked out deals with the Democrats.
> 
> That was the real Reagan.
> 
> What you guys want to talk about is the mythical Reagan who never comprimised his conservative priniciples and personally brought down "Communism" by shouting at the Berlin Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and THAT just scratches the surface.
> 
> Here below as well is the real Reagan exposed.
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
> 
> 
> Liar
> Thief
> Mass murderer
> Supporter of abortion
> War criminal
> 
> 
> 
> Destroyer of freedom
> Traitor of the American people
> Corporate whore
> Destroyer of the environment
> 
> Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration :
> "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
> 
> Joe you'll never get anywhere with Crusader Retard.Like clockwork,he just went into meltdown mode when you told the truth about corrupt Ronnie.
> 
> The guy has got to be a close cousin of his.He takes things so personally going into rant mode  when you expose his idol like you did.Much more so that the others.
> 
> The others may throw childish insults when you expose him,but he takes it to the extremes going into meltdown mode denying reality refusing to look at the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The link is truthful in what it says exposing all the members in his administration that were corrupt.more so than any other administration.You know they wont be able to come up with more members from the other administrations like you asked Camp,thats a given.
> 
> But as I got done saying,Reagan isnt the most corrupt president EVER ,by any means.every president since then has been more corrupt than he was,compared to the clown we have in office now and Bush before him,Reagan doesnt look so bad.He doesnt look so bad now cause all the toehrs have been even worse expanding what he started.
> 
> Thats why people have forgotten so quickly,how bad things really were under Bush because as much as Bush recked the country,Obama has wrecked it far worse expanding what Bush got started.
> 
> But at the TIME back then,he sure was the most corrupt ever and there have been a lot of corrupt ones over the decades as well. those two facts cant be disputed.
Click to expand...


It all depends on how we as individuals measure corruption. It is hard to agrue with something as non-opinionated as convictions and pardons for crimes committed in office. Sure, we can give opinions about which President fed funds to special interest or caused the most people do be killed in war or from poison in the air and water. We can argue numbers on and on and on. But in the end, the one set of numbers that can not be argued about is the very simple one that tells an easy to understand story. Convictions and pardons for crimes committed during office.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Im sure you have noticed that they never have any answers for that link despite the HUNDREDS of times I have posted it here? hee hee.

btw,they wont acknowledge it,they'll just ignore it,so i was wondering,have YOU ever seen anyone like the resident troll hre on this thread i have been referring to that always goes into meltdown mode denying reality taking and getting all worked up over someone when they expose the corruption of Reagan like whats his name? 

God Im a huge fan of JFK as you know ,but I dont go berserk and get worked up about it like he does when someone criticises him. the truth obviously hurts Reagans cousin. He has to be his cousin,only thing that makes any sense why he takes it so personal even far worse than the others do.

He is such an idiot,he actually believes i read any of his b.s anymore when he replies.I only address the b.s posts that ha makes to someone like you or joe.what he has to say back to me,i dont even bother to feed the troll reading his b.s.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> Im sure you have noticed that they never have any answers for that link despite the HUNDREDS of times I have posted it here? hee hee.
> 
> btw,they wont acknowledge it,they'll just ignore it,so i was wondering,have YOU ever seen anyone like the resident troll hre on this thread i have been referring to that always goes into meltdown mode denying reality taking and getting all worked up over someone when they expose the corruption of Reagan like whats his name?
> 
> God Im a huge fan of JFK as you know ,but I dont go berserk and get worked up about it like he does when someone criticises him. the truth obviously hurts Reagans cousin. He has to be his cousin,only thing that makes any sense why he takes it so personal even far worse than the others do.
> 
> He is such an idiot,he actually believes i read any of his b.s anymore when he replies.I only address the b.s posts that ha makes to someone like you or joe.what he has to say back to me,i dont even bother to feed the troll reading his b.s.



I see him as a good soldier sticking to his post. Not important how some person on the net feels about something. Posting and debating should be fun. Maybe it gets  frustrating at times, but it really isn't so serious or important. Some folks here are very reliable. You say something about a politician and you are going to get a response from a specific person. It's predictable. Have fun pushing buttons. Sometimes you get farts. That is just the way it works.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

what I have learned and Im sure you have as well is that its a waste of time to reason with people on the net,they know they can hide behind the computer to avoid being called out and admitting they have been proven wrong so the first time they ignore things like that link i have posted hundreds of times,thats it,i move on and reply to the ones that listen such as yourself as well as having fun with frank with my fart jokes of course.


----------



## Camp

I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> You're right...he DID give amnesty to illegals as part of a deal he worked out with Tip O'Neal and the Democrats.  Reagan gave amnesty and the Democrats were supposed to strengthen border control.  Guess who lived up to his end of the bargain and who didn't live up to their end?



Yeah, we know you live in some fantasy world whre the border can be secured.  Sure.  Actually, the biggest problem with the Amnesty that Reagan was all for was that it put employers in charge of making sure that htey weren't hiring illegals. THat was like putting the Foxes in Charge of the Henhouse.  




Oldstyle said:


> And yes, Reagan DID appoint moderates to the Supreme Court...just as George H. W. Bush did and George W. Bush did!  The truth is (despite all the bullshit you liberals like to spout about this topic!) Republicans are the ones who have appointed moderates to the Supreme Court while Democrats have ALWAYS appointed liberals to the court.



But that's the point. BUsh TRIED to appoint a moderate Harriet Myers, and you conservatards threw an absolute fit, and he appointed knuckled-dragging Alito instead.  

Incidently, Breyers is pretty moderate.  SO is Sotomoyor, for that matter. So that argument fails. 




Oldstyle said:


> Reagan did work across the aisle...so did H.W. Bush...so did W....the one who HASN'T worked across the aisle is Barack (elections have consequences!) Obama!



Um, how exactly do you work across the ailse with people who have said they'd rather destroy the country than let you run it?  I'm just curious about this.  




Oldstyle said:


> As for taxes?  Overall Reagan cut taxes dramatically.  It's what led to the economic recovery...a concept that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and yourself can't seem to grasp...even after nearly six years of stagnant economic growth!!!



Actually, what it lead to was a tripling of the National Debt in 8 years. 

What lead to a recovery is that he spent a trillion dollars on new defense stuff.  In short, Reagan was a military Keynesian.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [qu
> 
> We have the World's #1 economy and we got there through capitalism. China is growing now-- from Capitalism
> 
> Capitalism recently moved 1 billion people out of poverty. I know how much you hate that JosefB. You want to crush people under your heel so they are grateful for the 2 grains of rice you dole out to them but that's just too fucking bad for you
> 
> China will never "own" us, that's your nipply schoolgirl fantasy of an unarmed America that is the latest Communist failure
> 
> Oh, and go fuck yourself in the process



Actually, the Chinese pretty much own us now.  

But what they are doing isn't capitalism or even an inbred relative.  It fascism.  

INcidently, I have no problem with Capitalism as long as the rights of workers are protected.  

THAT'S what moved 1 billion people from poverty to a comfortable life.  When reform-minded leaders like FDR and Teddy Roosevelt had crazy ideas like making sure you had a minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety. 

And here was the the thing.  Republicans used to get it.  Harding, Eisenhower, Nixon- all kind of understood, a middle class was the sign of strong economy.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JosefB, never in the military, never an Eisenhower Republican, never voted for Reagan, never fired from a job for getting sick.
> 
> Just another OFA guy with his "I used to be a Republican" Script and a genuine member of the US Communist Party



Sorry, man MOS 76Y30.  you can look that up.  

If you even know what an MOS is.


----------



## JoeB131

A final thought on Mythic Reagan.  

Why do the Republicans need to believe in this Legendary Reagan who bears little resemblance to the actual man (who actually did some okay stuff?)  

Well, mostly because they don't have much else to work with. 

Hoover pretty much watched the economy burn on his watch (although mostly due to Coolidge's neglect and indifference. 

Ike was a great President, but he pretty much admitted that on the role of Government, FDR had it pretty much right, and did civil rights and public works projects FDR would have envied in his first two terms. 

Nixon was actually a pretty decent president, except that Watergate thing. But you take away Watergate, you still have a moderate, government is okay sometimes President who gave us OSHA and the EPA. 

Ford is remembered as a buffoon. (Not fairly, but he is.) 

Bush-41 was a guy who wrecked the economy and got us into a pointless war. 

Bush-43 was a guy who destroyed the economy and got us into two pointless wars. 

SO, really, it's not so much about what Reagan did.  It's that he's really all they have.


----------



## thanatos144

Joe give it up because we all know your lies.  Go move to China 

tapatalk post


----------



## RKMBrown

Poor little Joe.  Someone get the mamby pamby a tissue.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.


Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
Click to expand...


Yes, the Middle Class did take an ass-whomping.  

Check out this chart.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Middle Class did take an ass-whomping.
> 
> Check out this chart.
Click to expand...


And only Communism can save them

Your chart...it doesn't say what you think it says


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> JosefB, never in the military, never an Eisenhower Republican, never voted for Reagan, never fired from a job for getting sick.
> 
> Just another OFA guy with his "I used to be a Republican" Script and a genuine member of the US Communist Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man MOS 76Y30.  you can look that up.
> 
> If you even know what an MOS is.
Click to expand...


No idea, but I know you're a fake


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Middle Class did take an ass-whomping.
Click to expand...

Really wasn't meant for you. You've taken so many ass whompings that I couldn't possibly attribute your pillow biting to anything singular.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> JosefB, never in the military, never an Eisenhower Republican, never voted for Reagan, never fired from a job for getting sick.
> 
> Just another OFA guy with his "I used to be a Republican" Script and a genuine member of the US Communist Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man MOS 76Y30.  you can look that up.
> 
> If you even know what an MOS is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea, but I know you're a fake
Click to expand...


Okay, guy, if you don't know what an MOS is, it's pretty easy to tell you don't know much about the military.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
Click to expand...


It was.

23 OCT 1983

Ronald Reagan - Commander in Chief
Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to Beirut. Lebanon
United States Marines ordered to carry UNLOADED WEAPONS
United States Marines ordered to not carry or be issued ammunition
United States Marine securtiy force and sentries unable to attempt the
stopping of suicide bomber charging through barricades towards barracks
Over 243 United States Marines killed  when unhindered bomber
detonates bomb upon crashing into barracks

Attack carried out by Hezbollah
No military response is attempted or made
Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to withdraw
Commander in Chief allows negotiations and arms sales to Iran
Iran is main supplier of munitions, weapons, support and backer of Hezbollah

Terrorist attacks on American citizens continue

Now show a link that shows one line of the above to be not 100% FACT AND TRUE.  FUCK RONALD REAGAN!!!


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was.
> 
> 18 April 1983
> 
> Ronald Reagan - Commander in Chief
> Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to Beirut. Lebanon
> United States Marines ordered to carry UNLOADED WEAPONS
> United States Marines ordered to not carry or be issued ammunition
> United States Marine securtiy force and sentries unable to attempt the
> stopping of suicide bomber charging through barricades towards barracks
> Over 243 United States Marines killed  when unhindered bomber
> detonates bomb upon crashing into barracks
> 
> Attack carried out by Hezbollah
> No military response is attempted or made
> Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to withdraw
> Commander in Chief allows negotiations and arms sales to Iran
> Iran is main supplier of munitions, weapons, support and backer of Hezbollah
> 
> Terrorist attacks on American citizens continue
> 
> Now show a link that shows one line of the above to be not 100% FACT AND TRUE.  FUCK RONALD REAGAN!!!
Click to expand...

We both know that's not why you're biting down on your pillow 25 years hence. Even for a light weight, that's pretty disingenuous.


----------



## editec

What an asskicking thread this was for those of you still clinging to the REAGAN myths.

Facts have an annoying way of not going away, not even after decades of lies trying to cover them up.

Now I know both DEMS and REPS are gonna hate me for saying this but *REAGAN was just one more TOOL in a line of Presidents who are tools for the masters.*

This nation has NOT had a _real change of administrations_ since CARTER left office.

Oh the puppets change, but the puppet-masters are the same shadowy figures as always.

When did these people grow so bold?

I'm guessing after they managed to off JFK and get away with it.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was.
> 
> 18 April 1983
> 
> Ronald Reagan - Commander in Chief
> Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to Beirut. Lebanon
> United States Marines ordered to carry UNLOADED WEAPONS
> United States Marines ordered to not carry or be issued ammunition
> United States Marine securtiy force and sentries unable to attempt the
> stopping of suicide bomber charging through barricades towards barracks
> Over 243 United States Marines killed  when unhindered bomber
> detonates bomb upon crashing into barracks
> 
> Attack carried out by Hezbollah
> No military response is attempted or made
> Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to withdraw
> Commander in Chief allows negotiations and arms sales to Iran
> Iran is main supplier of munitions, weapons, support and backer of Hezbollah
> 
> Terrorist attacks on American citizens continue
> 
> Now show a link that shows one line of the above to be not 100% FACT AND TRUE.  FUCK RONALD REAGAN!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We both know that's not why you're biting down on your pillow 25 years hence. Even for a light weight, that's pretty disingenuous.
Click to expand...


Oops, one of the facts is wrong. I listed the date of the Embassy attack in Beirut that killed 63, includeing 17 Americans. So many dates of Americans getting killed by the terrorist during the Reagan years it is hard to keep them straight and easy to confuse.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, man MOS 76Y30.  you can look that up.
> 
> If you even know what an MOS is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No idea, but I know you're a fake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, if you don't know what an MOS is, it's pretty easy to tell you don't know much about the military.
Click to expand...


I never said I did know much about the military, but I know you're a fake

If I were a fake like you, I'd Google some military designation like you (and other Progressives) have done and claim that I served. But I don't need to pretend I was in the military or that I was a Republican until <insert inciting incident> as you've done


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea, but I know you're a fake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, if you don't know what an MOS is, it's pretty easy to tell you don't know much about the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I did much about the military, but I know you're a fake
Click to expand...


"I'm reasonably sure that you weren't a part of something I know nothing about!" 

Seriously, guy, that's what you are going with?  

Seriously?


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea, but I know you're a fake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, if you don't know what an MOS is, it's pretty easy to tell you don't know much about the military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I did know much about the military, but I know you're a fake
> 
> If I were a fake like you, I'd Google some military designation like you (and other Progressives) have done and claim that I served. But I don't need to pretend I was in the military or that I was a Republican until <insert inciting incident> as you've done
Click to expand...


The problem with doing that is that you can't fake it.  Either you know it or you don't.  

ANd obviously, when you don't know something as pretty basic as "What's your MOS" (something that I use to quickly separate the fakers from the real vets) then that becomes obvious. 

Incidently for future reference, MOS is "Military Occupational SPecialty" 

The first two numbers are general category. The letter in the middle is specialty, the last two are level of rank.  

So 76Y30 -  Supply specialist, NCO.

Now, after I left in 1992, they changed all the designations, and the Supply Designations are all in the 90's for some reason I don't quite get.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, if you don't know what an MOS is, it's pretty easy to tell you don't know much about the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I did much about the military, but I know you're a fake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I'm reasonably sure that you weren't a part of something I know nothing about!"
> 
> Seriously, guy, that's what you are going with?
> 
> Seriously?
Click to expand...


JosefB, you're a total fake and fraud.

I don't know what MOS but I know you're a genuine Communist who likes to post here pretending to have been a Republican

Again, your imaginary military service is as big a fraud as you are. That I don't know what your imaginary designation means, doesn't mean anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, if you don't know what an MOS is, it's pretty easy to tell you don't know much about the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I did know much about the military, but I know you're a fake
> 
> If I were a fake like you, I'd Google some military designation like you (and other Progressives) have done and claim that I served. But I don't need to pretend I was in the military or that I was a Republican until <insert inciting incident> as you've done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with doing that is that you can't fake it.  Either you know it or you don't.
> 
> ANd obviously, when you don't know something as pretty basic as "What's your MOS" (something that I use to quickly separate the fakers from the real vets) then that becomes obvious.
> 
> Incidently for future reference, MOS is "Military Occupational SPecialty"
> 
> The first two numbers are general category. The letter in the middle is specialty, the last two are level of rank.
> 
> So 76Y30 -  Supply specialist, NCO.
> 
> Now, after I left in 1992, they changed all the designations, and the Supply Designations are all in the 90's for some reason I don't quite get.
Click to expand...


They changed it because you're a fake


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.



yeah I know.I remember you doing that.they always ignore the TOPIC of this thread and switch gears ignoring how reagan funded terrorists and then start saying he was nothing like the clown we have in office now who has only been doing the same thing reagan got started,the father of them all who all have contiuned what he got started i.

they only want to talk about what the children os his since then have done with their terrorism.they dismiss what their father who got the ball rolling on it started.thats when they go into meltdown mode taking it personal with their name calling.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [qu
> 
> We have the World's #1 economy and we got there through capitalism. China is growing now-- from Capitalism
> 
> Capitalism recently moved 1 billion people out of poverty. I know how much you hate that JosefB. You want to crush people under your heel so they are grateful for the 2 grains of rice you dole out to them but that's just too fucking bad for you
> 
> China will never "own" us, that's your nipply schoolgirl fantasy of an unarmed America that is the latest Communist failure
> 
> Oh, and go fuck yourself in the process
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Chinese pretty much own us now.
> 
> But what they are doing isn't capitalism or even an inbred relative.  It fascism.
> 
> INcidently, I have no problem with Capitalism as long as the rights of workers are protected.
> 
> THAT'S what moved 1 billion people from poverty to a comfortable life.  When reform-minded leaders like FDR and Teddy Roosevelt had crazy ideas like making sure you had a minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety.
> 
> And here was the the thing.  Republicans used to get it.  Harding, Eisenhower, Nixon- all kind of understood, a middle class was the sign of strong economy.
Click to expand...


and dont forget the last great republican president that we had understood it as well-Coolidge.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> A final thought on Mythic Reagan.
> 
> Why do the Republicans need to believe in this Legendary Reagan who bears little resemblance to the actual man (who actually did some okay stuff?)
> 
> Well, mostly because they don't have much else to work with.
> 
> Hoover pretty much watched the economy burn on his watch (although mostly due to Coolidge's neglect and indifference.
> 
> Ike was a great President, but he pretty much admitted that on the role of Government, FDR had it pretty much right, and did civil rights and public works projects FDR would have envied in his first two terms.
> 
> Nixon was actually a pretty decent president, except that Watergate thing. But you take away Watergate, you still have a moderate, government is okay sometimes President who gave us OSHA and the EPA.
> 
> Ford is remembered as a buffoon. (Not fairly, but he is.)
> 
> Bush-41 was a guy who wrecked the economy and got us into a pointless war.
> 
> Bush-43 was a guy who destroyed the economy and got us into two pointless wars.
> 
> SO, really, it's not so much about what Reagan did.  It's that he's really all they have.



actually Coolidge was probably the best president we have had the last 100 years right after JFK.Coolidge was the last great republican president we had.The economy was actually flourishing under Coolidge and then Hoover came in and wrecked it. and dont even mention Nixon as a decent president,watergate is just the tip of the iceberg,it wasnt the NVA or the vietcong that murdered 58,000 americans,it was Johnson and Nixon that murdered them.

That bastard Nixon lied to the american people saying he would end the war immediately but behind the scenes,he was sabotoging Johnsons paris peace talks to end the war and did so successfully expaning the war and letting it go on for another four more years.

that fucking bastard sacrificed thousands of american lives for his own selfish need to get elected president. just liek johnson,he was a fucking mass murderer of americans.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Middle Class did take an ass-whomping.
> 
> Check out this chart.
Click to expand...


remember pesky facts like that are too complicated for a MEATHEAD brain to comprehend.

they keep playing dodgeball with these facts that unemployment and the recession was far worse under reagan than carter.They ignore facts that you mentioend earlier that Reagan got rid of the inflation that was going on under carter which the fed created it,that he got rid of it by shipping jobs overseas and getting rid of jobs. they ignore these pesky facts here that you mentioned earlier below on the left where it shows inflation was higher under carter than reagan,but the more important one that affected americans much worse,is that unemployment was much worse under reagan than it was under carter.

you tried to spell that out to them earlier dummies style,but since they only see what they want to see,it did no good.

MYTH 
carter created the recession,Reagan saved it.
Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it

Year    Inflation  Unemployment (1)
-------------------------------
1961      1.0%      6.7%
1962      1.0       5.6
1963      1.3       5.6
1964      1.3       5.2
1965      1.6       4.5  < Vietnam war spending increases
1966      2.9       3.8
1967      3.1       3.8
1968      4.2       3.5
1969      5.5       3.5
1970      5.7       5.0
1971      4.4       6.0
1972      3.2       5.6
1973      6.2       4.9
1974     11.0       5.6  < First oil crisis
1975      9.1       8.5
1976      5.8       7.7
1977      6.5       7.1
1978      7.6       6.1
1979     11.3       5.9  < Second oil crisis
1980     13.5       7.2
1981     10.3       7.6
1982      6.2       9.7
1983      3.2       9.6
1984      4.3       7.5

CLEAR CUT PROOF WITH PESKY FACTS THEY CANT DEAL WITH THAT WHEN CARTER GOT IN OFFICE,UNEMPLOYMENT WENT DOWN UNDER HIS WATCH THAN WHEN FORD WAS IN OFFICE.HIS LAST YEAR WAS THE ONLY YEAR,UNEMPLOYMENT WENT UP.

REAGAN CAME IN,AND UNEMPLOYMENT WAS FAR WORSE UNDER HIM IN HIS FIRST TERM THAN CARTER AS THE FACTS SHOW.1983 ESPECIALLY IT WENT UPON HIS WATCH. Until  1984,an election year as this graph proves,Reagan took no action to create jobs.

they cant handle the truth that Reagan was only able to lower the inflation that was high under carter,by shipping jobs overseas ruining the economy and betraying the american people especially the middle class.

These pesky little facts prove the middle class familys and the economy was much better off under carter than it was under reagan and his first term and that we were actually worse off with reagan in his first term economic wise than with carter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when they call you names like idiot, libtard, moron, nutjob, etc. They are the ones that are the most fun to mess with. Once on this thread I just kept posting dates followed by "FUCK RONALD REAGAN". Talk about button pushing. I finaly had to explain to the really slow ones that I was posting dates of terrorist attacks on Ameician citizens during the Reagan administration. Dumb ass's never tried to google the dates. Probably pissed off the Benghazi heads without even trying.
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was.
> 
> 23 OCT 1983
> 
> Ronald Reagan - Commander in Chief
> Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to Beirut. Lebanon
> United States Marines ordered to carry UNLOADED WEAPONS
> United States Marines ordered to not carry or be issued ammunition
> United States Marine securtiy force and sentries unable to attempt the
> stopping of suicide bomber charging through barricades towards barracks
> Over 243 United States Marines killed  when unhindered bomber
> detonates bomb upon crashing into barracks
> 
> Attack carried out by Hezbollah
> No military response is attempted or made
> Commander in Chief orders United States Marines to withdraw
> Commander in Chief allows negotiations and arms sales to Iran
> Iran is main supplier of munitions, weapons, support and backer of Hezbollah
> 
> Terrorist attacks on American citizens continue
> 
> Now show a link that shows one line of the above to be not 100% FACT AND TRUE.  FUCK RONALD REAGAN!!!
Click to expand...


you will be waiting for eternity for that .

just like you are still wating for them to refute my facts that more reagan officials that served under him were indicted than any other administration for carrying out HIS policys.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> What an asskicking thread this was for those of you still clinging to the REAGAN myths.
> 
> Facts have an annoying way of not going away, not even after decades of lies trying to cover them up.
> 
> Now I know both DEMS and REPS are gonna hate me for saying this but *REAGAN was just one more TOOL in a line of Presidents who are tools for the masters.*
> 
> This nation has NOT had a _real change of administrations_ since CARTER left office.
> 
> Oh the puppets change, but the puppet-masters are the same shadowy figures as always.
> 
> When did these people grow so bold?
> 
> I'm guessing after they managed to off JFK and get away with it.



edit out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> What an asskicking thread this was for those of you still clinging to the REAGAN myths.
> 
> Facts have an annoying way of not going away, not even after decades of lies trying to cover them up.
> 
> Now I know both DEMS and REPS are gonna hate me for saying this but *REAGAN was just one more TOOL in a line of Presidents who are tools for the masters.*
> 
> This nation has NOT had a _real change of administrations_ since CARTER left office.
> 
> Oh the puppets change, but the puppet-masters are the same shadowy figures as always.
> 
> When did these people grow so bold?
> 
> I'm guessing after they managed to off JFK and get away with it.



Best damn post on this thread going several pages back.





your making way too much sense for the trolls to comprehend.you are going to overload their brains so much with all this logic and common sense and pesky facts ,they are going to have a nervous breakdown.


one more time.it so much needs to be repeated.



This is easily the best post on this thread that I will have to keep referring back to it since the reaganuts all have memory and reading comprehension problems.

wont do any good though of course since as you well know,they only see what they WANT to see.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> What an asskicking thread this was for those of you still clinging to the REAGAN myths.
> 
> Facts have an annoying way of not going away, not even after decades of lies trying to cover them up.
> 
> Now I know both DEMS and REPS are gonna hate me for saying this but *REAGAN was just one more TOOL in a line of Presidents who are tools for the masters.*
> 
> This nation has NOT had a _real change of administrations_ since CARTER left office.
> 
> Oh the puppets change, but the puppet-masters are the same shadowy figures as always.
> 
> When did these people grow so bold?
> 
> I'm guessing after they managed to off JFK and get away with it.



these two links below that they never have any answers for, backs up everything you say as well.  Good to see so many others out  there that are aware of reagans betrayal of the middle class like we are. as you can tell from all the replys to that link,they are all aware of those facts as well.

BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com: How Ronald Reagan Unwittingly Laid the Groundwork for the Death of Capitalism

Like they talked about in that article,he got credit for soemthing he had nothing to do with, the collapse of the USSR.

Like that article said,the military industrial complex more than anything,wanted the cold war to continue.Had Reagan caused the collapse of the USSR like they want to believe here on this thread,he would have ended up like JFK for not being their willing puppet like he was for them. they never  would have allowed him to cause the collapse of the USSR.only an idiot would believe otherwise.

 that was why they had an  assassination attempt on him because the first couple months while in office,he was talking about things like hinting to the american people that there were UFO'S out there with other life forms from other worlds watching us.

He was hinting at exposing that to the world obviously but after his asssassination attempt ,he stopped making speeches like that and his policys drastically changed as well after that seving wall street in the corporations instead of the people. 

Reagan didnt betray the middle class and the american people,thats why he fired 13,000 air traffic controllers his first year in office. 

as my graph proved and as Joe said earlier,reagan only got cut the inflation that we had under carter by getting rid of jobs shipping manufacturing jobs overseas.

as myself,someone else mentioned earlier, and you just did pretty much-Reagan was the father who got the ball rolling in jobs being shipped overseas which every president since then has expanded.the presidents after Reagan were their children following his lead.He was the FATHER of them all that set the example for the future we have right now though.


----------



## RKMBrown

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been one hell of an ass whomping to be biting down on the pillow so hard after 25 years!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Middle Class did take an ass-whomping.
> 
> Check out this chart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And only Communism can save them
> 
> Your chart...it doesn't say what you think it says
Click to expand...


QFT it says paying people to be unemployed lowers income for the middle class.


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Middle Class did take an ass-whomping.
> 
> Check out this chart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And only Communism can save them
> 
> Your chart...it doesn't say what you think it says
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> QFT it says paying people to be unemployed lowers income for the middle class.
Click to expand...


No, it says if you break up unions, make American workers compete with child labor in third world countries, shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class, then, yes, yes, you are going to reduce the wages and size of the middle class.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And only Communism can save them
> 
> Your chart...it doesn't say what you think it says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QFT it says paying people to be unemployed lowers income for the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says if you break up unions, make American workers compete with child labor in third world countries, shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class, then, yes, yes, you are going to reduce the wages and size of the middle class.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes...Progressives..."protectors" of the Middle Class!  Funny how you people keep going on about how you've got the Middle Classes' back yet your policies always end up hurting them!

Take ObamaCare...

Barry said it would lower the average Middle Class family's healthcare premiums by about $2,500 a year.  He said ObamaCare was all about "protecting" the Middle Class!  So fast forward four years and what's happening?  The healthcare premiums for the average Middle Class family have gone up dramatically with more increases on the way.  Why?  Because the ACA was NEVER about protecting the Middle Class...it was always about getting another entitlement program in place.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And only Communism can save them
> 
> Your chart...it doesn't say what you think it says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QFT it says paying people to be unemployed lowers income for the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says if you break up unions, make American workers compete with child labor in third world countries, shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class, then, yes, yes, you are going to reduce the wages and size of the middle class.
Click to expand...


How is ZERO TAX FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS SHIFTING TAX TO THE MIDDLE CLASS?  Did you flunk elementary math?


----------



## RKMBrown

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> QFT it says paying people to be unemployed lowers income for the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says if you break up unions, make American workers compete with child labor in third world countries, shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class, then, yes, yes, you are going to reduce the wages and size of the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, yes...Progressives..."protectors" of the Middle Class!  Funny how you people keep going on about how you've got the Middle Classes' back yet your policies always end up hurting them!
> 
> Take ObamaCare...
> 
> Barry said it would lower the average Middle Class family's healthcare premiums by about $2,500 a year.  He said ObamaCare was all about "protecting" the Middle Class!  So fast forward four years and what's happening?  The healthcare premiums for the average Middle Class family have gone up dramatically with more increases on the way.  Why?  Because the ACA was NEVER about protecting the Middle Class...it was always about getting another entitlement program in place.
Click to expand...


Democrat way of protecting the middle class is by splitting the country up into two classes, poor and rich, where the poor get paid to do nothing and the rich are democrat elites.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Ah, yes...Progressives..."protectors" of the Middle Class!  Funny how you people keep going on about how you've got the Middle Classes' back yet your policies always end up hurting them!
> 
> Take ObamaCare...
> 
> Barry said it would lower the average Middle Class family's healthcare premiums by about $2,500 a year.  He said ObamaCare was all about "protecting" the Middle Class!  So fast forward four years and what's happening?  The healthcare premiums for the average Middle Class family have gone up dramatically with more increases on the way.  Why?  Because the ACA was NEVER about protecting the Middle Class...it was always about getting another entitlement program in place.



Um, yeah, guy, but here's the thing...

If the Middle CLass' health care is based on the whims of hteir employers, that's not much more secure, is it?  



> Despite the worst roll-out conceivable, the Affordable Care Act seems to be working. With less than two weeks remaining before the March 31 deadline for coverage this year, five million people have already signed up. After decades of rising percentages of Americans lacking health insurance, the uninsured rate has dropped to its lowest levels since 2008.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rise in health care costs has slowed drastically. No one knows exactly why, but the new law may well be contributing to this slowdown by reducing Medicare overpayments to medical providers and private insurers, and creating incentives for hospitals and doctors to improve quality of care.



Robert Reich (The Real Truth About ObamaCare)

Now that's we've dispelled your bullshit again, how about addressing my point about how the 1%ers have been making war on the middle class for 30 years with union busting and free trade?


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> QFT it says paying people to be unemployed lowers income for the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says if you break up unions, make American workers compete with child labor in third world countries, shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class, then, yes, yes, you are going to reduce the wages and size of the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is ZERO TAX FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS SHIFTING TAX TO THE MIDDLE CLASS?  Did you flunk elementary math?
Click to expand...


What the fuck are you talking about? 

Reagan INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class.  The bottom rate for FICA went up from 11 to 15% on his watch, while the top rate dropped from 70% to 35%.  

On top of that, he increased the amount paid in Medicare and Social Security Tax from 11% to 14%.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ah, yes...Progressives..."protectors" of the Middle Class!  Funny how you people keep going on about how you've got the Middle Classes' back yet your policies always end up hurting them!
> 
> Take ObamaCare...
> 
> Barry said it would lower the average Middle Class family's healthcare premiums by about $2,500 a year.  He said ObamaCare was all about "protecting" the Middle Class!  So fast forward four years and what's happening?  The healthcare premiums for the average Middle Class family have gone up dramatically with more increases on the way.  Why?  Because the ACA was NEVER about protecting the Middle Class...it was always about getting another entitlement program in place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, but here's the thing...
> 
> If the Middle CLass' health care is based on the whims of hteir employers, that's not much more secure, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the worst roll-out conceivable, the Affordable Care Act seems to be working. With less than two weeks remaining before the March 31 deadline for coverage this year, five million people have already signed up. After decades of rising percentages of Americans lacking health insurance, the uninsured rate has dropped to its lowest levels since 2008.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rise in health care costs has slowed drastically. No one knows exactly why, but the new law may well be contributing to this slowdown by reducing Medicare overpayments to medical providers and private insurers, and creating incentives for hospitals and doctors to improve quality of care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert Reich (The Real Truth About ObamaCare)
> 
> Now that's we've dispelled your bullshit again, how about addressing my point about how the 1%ers have been making war on the middle class for 30 years with union busting and free trade?
Click to expand...


Robert Reich?  LOL  Now THAT'S funny!  Robert Reich hasn't told the truth about ObamaCare for years now...what makes you think he's telling the truth now?

If it's the 1% "making war" on the Middle Class...then why has the Middle Class continued to lose ground with their net income under the Obama Administration's policies?  The truth is that under Barry the rich have gotten much richer and the Middle Class have gotten much poorer yet all you hear from Obama and the rest of you liberal shills is how much you want to "help" the Middle Class!


----------



## Dot Com

how long are repubs and their puppet-masters going to continue their war on America?


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says if you break up unions, make American workers compete with child labor in third world countries, shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class, then, yes, yes, you are going to reduce the wages and size of the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is ZERO TAX FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS SHIFTING TAX TO THE MIDDLE CLASS?  Did you flunk elementary math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Reagan INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class.  The bottom rate for FICA went up from 11 to 15% on his watch, while the top rate dropped from 70% to 35%.
> 
> On top of that, he increased the amount paid in Medicare and Social Security Tax from 11% to 14%.
Click to expand...


That's a complete falsehood on your part...Reagan raised some taxes...Reagan lowered some taxes...Reagan reworked the tax codes.  Some ignorant people think Reagan increased taxes when the truth is that he cut taxes SUBSTANTIALLY!


----------



## Dot Com

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ah, yes...Progressives..."protectors" of the Middle Class!  Funny how you people keep going on about how you've got the Middle Classes' back yet your policies always end up hurting them!
> 
> Take ObamaCare...
> 
> Barry said it would lower the average Middle Class family's healthcare premiums by about $2,500 a year.  He said ObamaCare was all about "protecting" the Middle Class!  So fast forward four years and what's happening?  The healthcare premiums for the average Middle Class family have gone up dramatically with more increases on the way.  Why?  Because the ACA was NEVER about protecting the Middle Class...it was always about getting another entitlement program in place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, but here's the thing...
> 
> If the Middle CLass' health care is based on the whims of hteir employers, that's not much more secure, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the worst roll-out conceivable, the Affordable Care Act seems to be working. With less than two weeks remaining before the March 31 deadline for coverage this year, five million people have already signed up. After decades of rising percentages of Americans&#8217; lacking health insurance, the uninsured rate has dropped to its lowest levels since 2008.
> 
> Meanwhile, the rise in health care costs has slowed drastically. No one knows exactly why, but the new law may well be contributing to this slowdown by reducing Medicare overpayments to medical providers and private insurers, and creating incentives for hospitals and doctors to improve quality of care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert Reich (The Real Truth About ObamaCare)
> 
> Now that's we've dispelled your bullshit again, how about addressing my point about how the 1%ers have been making war on the middle class for 30 years with union busting and free trade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert Reich?  LOL  Now THAT'S funny!  Robert Reich hasn't told the truth about ObamaCare for years now...what makes you think he's telling the truth now?
> 
> If it's the 1% "making war" on the Middle Class...then why has the Middle Class continued to lose ground with their net income under the Obama Administration's policies?  The truth is that under Barry the rich have gotten much richer and the Middle Class have gotten much poorer yet all you hear from Obama and the rest of you liberal shills is how much you want to "help" the Middle Class!
Click to expand...


ummm..... you can't reduce the harm done to the middle class by the Repubs and their paymasters for the last 40 rys in one-term 

Also, having a tea tard held House & McConnell obstructing anything & everything for cheap political points only further makes my point more obvious

Glad to help


----------



## Oldstyle

Dot Com said:


> how long are repubs and their puppet-masters going to continue their war on America?



Until we fix the damage that you progressives have caused over the past forty years?


----------



## Oldstyle

Dot Com said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, but here's the thing...
> 
> If the Middle CLass' health care is based on the whims of hteir employers, that's not much more secure, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Reich (The Real Truth About ObamaCare)
> 
> Now that's we've dispelled your bullshit again, how about addressing my point about how the 1%ers have been making war on the middle class for 30 years with union busting and free trade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Reich?  LOL  Now THAT'S funny!  Robert Reich hasn't told the truth about ObamaCare for years now...what makes you think he's telling the truth now?
> 
> If it's the 1% "making war" on the Middle Class...then why has the Middle Class continued to lose ground with their net income under the Obama Administration's policies?  The truth is that under Barry the rich have gotten much richer and the Middle Class have gotten much poorer yet all you hear from Obama and the rest of you liberal shills is how much you want to "help" the Middle Class!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ummm..... you can't reduce the harm done to the middle class by the Repubs and their paymasters for the last 40 rys in one-term
> 
> Also, having a tea tard held House & McConnell obstructing anything & everything for cheap political points only further makes my point more obvious
> 
> Glad to help
Click to expand...


If the House hadn't stopped Barry's agenda in 2010 the next two things he had lined up for passage were  Cap & Trade legislation and Card Check legislation...two things that would have seriously hurt an already weak economy.  The GOP House victory in 2010 kept Obama from screwing thing up far worse than he already had with the most poorly written law ever...the Affordable Care Act.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Robert Reich?  LOL  Now THAT'S funny!  Robert Reich hasn't told the truth about ObamaCare for years now...what makes you think he's telling the truth now?
> 
> If it's the 1% "making war" on the Middle Class...then why has the Middle Class continued to lose ground with their net income under the Obama Administration's policies?  The truth is that under Barry the rich have gotten much richer and the Middle Class have gotten much poorer yet all you hear from Obama and the rest of you liberal shills is how much you want to "help" the Middle Class!



You mean why did the 1% use the oppurtunity of the Great Recession to fuck over the Middle CLass even further?  

Hey, guy, guess what. Obama Won, the 1% and Romney lost.  

Deal with it.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> That's a complete falsehood on your part...Reagan raised some taxes...Reagan lowered some taxes...Reagan reworked the tax codes.  Some ignorant people think Reagan increased taxes when the truth is that he cut taxes SUBSTANTIALLY!



Yes, he cut them for Rich People and increased them on working people. 

That's the point.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Reich?  LOL  Now THAT'S funny!  Robert Reich hasn't told the truth about ObamaCare for years now...what makes you think he's telling the truth now?
> 
> If it's the 1% "making war" on the Middle Class...then why has the Middle Class continued to lose ground with their net income under the Obama Administration's policies?  The truth is that under Barry the rich have gotten much richer and the Middle Class have gotten much poorer yet all you hear from Obama and the rest of you liberal shills is how much you want to "help" the Middle Class!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean why did the 1% use the oppurtunity of the Great Recession to fuck over the Middle CLass even further?
> 
> Hey, guy, guess what. Obama Won, the 1% and Romney lost.
> 
> Deal with it.
Click to expand...


How exactly did the 1% "lose"?  Wealth among the extremely wealthy has gone up more under Obama than any other sector of the population.  Obama's economic policies have hurt the Middle Class more than any other sector of the population.  Yes, Obama "won" but his victories have cost Middle Class Americans dearly...something that they are now figuring out as the true costs of the ACA slowly are revealed.  There is a REASON why major parts of that law have been delayed.  Obama and the Democrats don't want the Middle Class to know how badly they've been fucked over until AFTER the next mid-term election.  After that takes place...Barry won't care because dealing with voter anger will be the problem of someone else while he's out hitting the links on our dime.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> That's a complete falsehood on your part...Reagan raised some taxes...Reagan lowered some taxes...Reagan reworked the tax codes.  Some ignorant people think Reagan increased taxes when the truth is that he cut taxes SUBSTANTIALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he cut them for Rich People and increased them on working people.
> 
> That's the point.
Click to expand...


Reagan cut income taxes for everyone...not just the rich.


----------



## Iceweasel

Oldstyle said:


> Reagan cut income taxes for everyone...not just the rich.


Yep. And Joe is a total moron for repeating that over and over hoping to make it true.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Reich?  LOL  Now THAT'S funny!  Robert Reich hasn't told the truth about ObamaCare for years now...what makes you think he's telling the truth now?
> 
> If it's the 1% "making war" on the Middle Class...then why has the Middle Class continued to lose ground with their net income under the Obama Administration's policies?  The truth is that under Barry the rich have gotten much richer and the Middle Class have gotten much poorer yet all you hear from Obama and the rest of you liberal shills is how much you want to "help" the Middle Class!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean why did the 1% use the oppurtunity of the Great Recession to fuck over the Middle CLass even further?
> 
> Hey, guy, guess what. Obama Won, the 1% and Romney lost.
> 
> Deal with it.
Click to expand...


Kinda like how HE lies in all his posts. what a dumbfuck idiot trollstyle is. Yes the middle class has continued to lose ground with their net income  under the Obama administration,but they did under the Bush administration as well and thats because both of them just like every president since then, were following the foosteps of their father and his policys that got started by  Reagan.




what a fucking hypocrite.as always,the reaganuts retreat to the potus now when they are cornered with facts about reagans betrayal of the middle class.

everything he described Obama doing to the middle class -which nobody here is denying,is what Reagan STARTED.

anybody else here notice how the reaganut worshippers always retreat to what Obozo is doing in office now when confronted with pesky facts about reagan? its like clockwork.


Obama has done an excellent job of doing what he said he wanted to do when first got inagurated and said he wanted to do in his speech-follow the policys of reagan-leaving out the part how reagans policys betrayed the american middle class famlys of course.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan cut income taxes for everyone...not just the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And Joe is a total moron for repeating that over and over hoping to make it true.
Click to expand...


nope,unlike you,he can deal with facts.funny that you're gullible enough to listen to anything TROLLSTYLE says.

how much do your handlers pay you guys to troll these boards?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> That's a complete falsehood on your part...Reagan raised some taxes...Reagan lowered some taxes...Reagan reworked the tax codes.  Some ignorant people think Reagan increased taxes when the truth is that he cut taxes SUBSTANTIALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he cut them for Rich People and increased them on working people.
> 
> That's the point.
Click to expand...


pesky facts like that are a little bit too complicated for Trollstyle and the reaganuts to comprehend.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> What an asskicking thread this was for those of you still clinging to the REAGAN myths.
> 
> Facts have an annoying way of not going away, not even after decades of lies trying to cover them up.
> 
> Now I know both DEMS and REPS are gonna hate me for saying this but *REAGAN was just one more TOOL in a line of Presidents who are tools for the masters.*
> 
> This nation has NOT had a _real change of administrations_ since CARTER left office.
> 
> Oh the puppets change, but the puppet-masters are the same shadowy figures as always.
> 
> When did these people grow so bold?
> 
> I'm guessing after they managed to off JFK and get away with it.



Looks like all  the reaganut worshippers all missed THIS post.


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan cut income taxes for everyone...not just the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And Joe is a total moron for repeating that over and over hoping to make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nope,unlike you,he can deal with facts.funny that you're gullible enough to listen to anything TROLLSTYLE says.
> 
> how much do your handlers pay you guys to troll these boards?
Click to expand...

Guess 9/11 feels left out. Don't worry, you're a total moron too.


----------



## Oldstyle

I can't help but be amused by someone who thinks 9/11 was an "inside job" accusing me of not being able to deal with reality.

What's also amusing is that the very same liberals who want to point fingers at Reagan for increasing taxes conveniently forget that a good deal of those tax increases were part of a deal between Reagan and Democrats where Reagan agreed to tax increases and Democrats promised to cut spending.  Reagan lived up to his end of the bargain...the Democrats did not live up to their end!

But you liberal shills don't want to acknowledge THAT!   The truth is...Reagan cut taxes for the Middle Class just as he cut them for the wealthy.


----------



## Dot Com

Reagan, when faced w/ truth about Iran/Contra, cut 'n ran


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> How exactly did the 1% "lose"?  Wealth among the extremely wealthy has gone up more under Obama than any other sector of the population.  Obama's economic policies have hurt the Middle Class more than any other sector of the population.  Yes, Obama "won" but his victories have cost Middle Class Americans dearly...something that they are now figuring out as the true costs of the ACA slowly are revealed.  There is a REASON why major parts of that law have been delayed.  Obama and the Democrats don't want the Middle Class to know how badly they've been fucked over until AFTER the next mid-term election.  After that takes place...Barry won't care because dealing with voter anger will be the problem of someone else while he's out hitting the links on our dime.



Yawn, guy, you can keep repeating your sorry mantra of Hate Radio (watch, he'll deny he listens to Hate Radio). 

Reality is, none of the horrid things your side predicted about the ACA have come to pass. And, sorry, the economy really is better now than it was for people in 2009.   Obama answered the Reagan question in the affirmative.  That's why he won.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> That's a complete falsehood on your part...Reagan raised some taxes...Reagan lowered some taxes...Reagan reworked the tax codes.  Some ignorant people think Reagan increased taxes when the truth is that he cut taxes SUBSTANTIALLY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he cut them for Rich People and increased them on working people.
> 
> That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan cut income taxes for everyone...not just the rich.
Click to expand...


NO, he cut taxes for the rich, and they increased on working folks. 

Not only did he  increasethe bottom bracket from 11% to 15%. 

But he eliminated a lot of middle class tax decutions like beign able to deduct credit card interest on Schedule A.  

He also increased the payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare, which didn't really affect the rich because it's capped for them, but did hit working folks.  

But then you get the final place where he hit them.  When he cut deep into social programs, the States had to pick up the slack, and most states have flat income taxes or sales taxes... the kind of Fuck the WOrking Man taxes you conservatards just looooove.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> How exactly did the 1% "lose"?  Wealth among the extremely wealthy has gone up more under Obama than any other sector of the population.  Obama's economic policies have hurt the Middle Class more than any other sector of the population.  Yes, Obama "won" but his victories have cost Middle Class Americans dearly...something that they are now figuring out as the true costs of the ACA slowly are revealed.  There is a REASON why major parts of that law have been delayed.  Obama and the Democrats don't want the Middle Class to know how badly they've been fucked over until AFTER the next mid-term election.  After that takes place...Barry won't care because dealing with voter anger will be the problem of someone else while he's out hitting the links on our dime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, you can keep repeating your sorry mantra of Hate Radio (watch, he'll deny he listens to Hate Radio).
> 
> Reality is, none of the horrid things your side predicted about the ACA have come to pass. And, sorry, the economy really is better now than it was for people in 2009.   Obama answered the Reagan question in the affirmative.  That's why he won.
Click to expand...


that ones not true Bud. Obomination has continued expanding the disasterous economy that Bushwacker got started.Things are so bad economic wise and much worse under him than they were with Bush,that many people have forgotten how bad it actually was under Bush. everywhere i went,i heard people saying back then-Bush has left Obama quite a mess in this economy he is going to have to clean up.something he will need at least two terms to be able to do.Its so much worse now under obozo,people have forgotten how bad it was under Bushwacker.

got to remember,what the lamestream media is reporting-the same ones that toot the myth about reagan,what they REPORT about the econoomy and how it REALLY is now are two totally different things.They want you to think that things are getting better under Obama when it has actually gotten worse.
Reagan is the one of course they all took their lessons from though as im sure you must know.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he cut them for Rich People and increased them on working people.
> 
> That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan cut income taxes for everyone...not just the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, he cut taxes for the rich, and they increased on working folks.
> 
> Not only did he  increasethe bottom bracket from 11% to 15%.
> 
> But he eliminated a lot of middle class tax decutions like beign able to deduct credit card interest on Schedule A.
> 
> He also increased the payroll tax on Social Security and Medicare, which didn't really affect the rich because it's capped for them, but did hit working folks.
> 
> But then you get the final place where he hit them.  When he cut deep into social programs, the States had to pick up the slack, and most states have flat income taxes or sales taxes... the kind of Fuck the WOrking Man taxes you conservatards just looooove.
Click to expand...


pesky facts like that are a little too complicted for Trollstyle to comprehend.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

you know I wonder where frank is,its extremely unusual for him to be gone so long from this thread.He must have suffered a nervous breakdown and had to go into the doctors office for a while  from all his previous meltdowns he had here so he is taking it easy for a while trying to recuperate and lower his blood pressure after it got so high.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> How exactly did the 1% "lose"?  Wealth among the extremely wealthy has gone up more under Obama than any other sector of the population.  Obama's economic policies have hurt the Middle Class more than any other sector of the population.  Yes, Obama "won" but his victories have cost Middle Class Americans dearly...something that they are now figuring out as the true costs of the ACA slowly are revealed.  There is a REASON why major parts of that law have been delayed.  Obama and the Democrats don't want the Middle Class to know how badly they've been fucked over until AFTER the next mid-term election.  After that takes place...Barry won't care because dealing with voter anger will be the problem of someone else while he's out hitting the links on our dime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy, you can keep repeating your sorry mantra of Hate Radio (watch, he'll deny he listens to Hate Radio).
> 
> Reality is, none of the horrid things your side predicted about the ACA have come to pass. And, sorry, the economy really is better now than it was for people in 2009.   Obama answered the Reagan question in the affirmative.  That's why he won.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding?  None of the things conservatives predicted about the ACA have come to pass?  *Most* of the things that conservatives predicted about the ACA have come to pass!  Or have you not been paying attention?

As for the economy?  Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.  That's not a partisan statement...that's a fact!


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Are you kidding?  None of the things conservatives predicted about the ACA have come to pass?  *Most* of the things that conservatives predicted about the ACA have come to pass!  Or have you not been paying attention?
> 
> As for the economy?  Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.  That's not a partisan statement...that's a fact!



That's an OPINION.  

Frankly, the recovery from the 1981 recession was pretty much just as weak.  

Meanwhile, Republicans are now talking about "fixing" ObamaCare and not scrapping it.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says if you break up unions, make American workers compete with child labor in third world countries, shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class, then, yes, yes, you are going to reduce the wages and size of the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is ZERO TAX FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS SHIFTING TAX TO THE MIDDLE CLASS?  Did you flunk elementary math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Reagan INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class.  The bottom rate for FICA went up from 11 to 15% on his watch, while the top rate dropped from 70% to 35%.
> 
> On top of that, he increased the amount paid in Medicare and Social Security Tax from 11% to 14%.
Click to expand...

Liar.


----------



## bedowin62

leftard loves to remind people Reagan raised taxes

geez then you'd think Reagan could get some love from left-wing idiots like Joe B; instead LWNJs whine that Reagan is the father of "trickle-down"


lib idiots; always crying. you just cant keep em happy


----------



## JoeB131

bedowin62 said:


> leftard loves to remind people Reagan raised taxes
> 
> geez then you'd think Reagan could get some love from left-wing idiots like Joe B; instead LWNJs whine that Reagan is the father of "trickle-down"
> 
> 
> lib idiots; always crying. you just cant keep em happy



It was the way he raised taxes.  

He essentially lowered them on the RIch, who could more than afford them, tripled hte national debt, and then raised them on working folks.  

In short, it's not what he did, it's that he did it in the most messed up way humanly possible.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> leftard loves to remind people Reagan raised taxes
> 
> geez then you'd think Reagan could get some love from left-wing idiots like Joe B; instead LWNJs whine that Reagan is the father of "trickle-down"
> 
> 
> lib idiots; always crying. you just cant keep em happy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the way he raised taxes.
> 
> He essentially lowered them on the RIch, who could more than afford them, tripled hte national debt, and then raised them on working folks.
> 
> In short, it's not what he did, it's that he did it in the most messed up way humanly possible.
Click to expand...


Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion of Reagan and taxes, Joe?  It's obvious that you know about as much about THAT subject as you do about Eisenhower and how the Interstate highway system was financed!  Why don't you do yourself a favor and sit your ass down in a library someplace and READ about the subjects you're blathering on about here!  Perhaps then you won't make such a colossal ass of yourself?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion of Reagan and taxes, Joe?  It's obvious that you know about as much about THAT subject as you do about Eisenhower and how the Interstate highway system was financed!  Why don't you do yourself a favor and sit your ass down in a library someplace and READ about the subjects you're blathering on about here!  Perhaps then you won't make such a colossal ass of yourself?



Guy, I don't want to get into that discussion with you, as you are posting from Bizarro World, where Reagan was a good president, Sarah Palin was Smart, the Iraq War was a great idea and Mr. Potter is the Hero in _It's a Wonderful Life_.  

Out here in the real world, Reagan ran up more debt in 8 years than his 39 predecessors had run up in 200.  

I mean, I could post all the graphs and charts to show how Reagan fucked up, well, let's be honest, just about everything.  But you guys are oblivious to those things.  So what's the point, really.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion of Reagan and taxes, Joe?  It's obvious that you know about as much about THAT subject as you do about Eisenhower and how the Interstate highway system was financed!  Why don't you do yourself a favor and sit your ass down in a library someplace and READ about the subjects you're blathering on about here!  Perhaps then you won't make such a colossal ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I don't want to get into that discussion with you, as you are posting from Bizarro World, where Reagan was a good president, Sarah Palin was Smart, the Iraq War was a great idea and Mr. Potter is the Hero in _It's a Wonderful Life_.
> 
> Out here in the real world, Reagan ran up more debt in 8 years than his 39 predecessors had run up in 200.
> 
> I mean, I could post all the graphs and charts to show how Reagan fucked up, well, let's be honest, just about everything.  But you guys are oblivious to those things.  So what's the point, really.
Click to expand...

Piece of shit liar.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion of Reagan and taxes, Joe?  It's obvious that you know about as much about THAT subject as you do about Eisenhower and how the Interstate highway system was financed!  Why don't you do yourself a favor and sit your ass down in a library someplace and READ about the subjects you're blathering on about here!  Perhaps then you won't make such a colossal ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I don't want to get into that discussion with you, as you are posting from Bizarro World, where Reagan was a good president, Sarah Palin was Smart, the Iraq War was a great idea and Mr. Potter is the Hero in _It's a Wonderful Life_.
> 
> Out here in the real world, Reagan ran up more debt in 8 years than his 39 predecessors had run up in 200.
> 
> I mean, I could post all the graphs and charts to show how Reagan fucked up, well, let's be honest, just about everything.  But you guys are oblivious to those things.  So what's the point, really.
Click to expand...


LOL...ah, yes...the old "percentage of growth" chart that you progressives LOVE to trot out to try and paint Reagan as a big spender and Barry as a "frugal" President.  It's laughable that any of you STILL think this little bit of statistical sleight of hand is going to stand up to even casual scrutiny. 

All your pretty bar graph "measures" is what percentage any given President increased or decreased spending over the President who was in office before him.  In Obama's case, he followed W. who was dealing with the economic crash and utilizing massive amounts of Keynesian spending that all you liberals love so much to prop up the economy.  What your bar chart doesn't show is that Obama spent more than W. did even at the height of the economic crisis EVERY SINGLE YEAR HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE.

As for Reagan's numbers?  Funny thing, Joe...Reagan worked out a deal with the Democratically controlled Congress where he would raise taxes if they would cut spending.  Reagan fulfilled his end of the bargain...only to have the Democrats renege on their part of that deal and NOT cut spending as agreed.  

Reagan attempted to do the right thing...only to be double crossed by liberals in Congress.  Yet you liberals today point to his numbers on taxes and spending and blame Reagan for something that was in some ways forced upon him by Tip O'Neil and the Democrats.


----------



## CrusaderFrank




----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> LOL...ah, yes...the old "percentage of growth" chart that you progressives LOVE to trot out to try and paint Reagan as a big spender and Barry as a "frugal" President.  It's laughable that any of you STILL think this little bit of statistical sleight of hand is going to stand up to even casual scrutiny.



No, guy, it's a valid point.   IN the 200 years before Reagan, we only ran up a Trillion dollars in debt. WOrld Wars, Interstate highway system, Putting men on the fucking moon- we still lived within our means and paid our way! Then along came your boy Reagan who decided to give huge tax cuts to the rich while spending money on $200 hammers, and lo and behold, we ended up with two trillion more in debt- essentially tripling it, with another trillion added on under his boy Bush bailing out his Saving and Loan cronies.  

Come on, tell me again how Republicans are about "fiscal responsibility". 

And now you have all this interest on the debt, with the rich being so used to not paying their fair share you'd never get serious tax reform, and you gripe that when Bush-43 crashed worse than his Dad did (talk about an Oedipus complex!) Obama can't get it under control. 




Oldstyle said:


> [
> All your pretty bar graph "measures" is what percentage any given President increased or decreased spending over the President who was in office before him.  In Obama's case, he followed W. who was dealing with the economic crash and utilizing massive amounts of Keynesian spending that all you liberals love so much to prop up the economy.  What your bar chart doesn't show is that Obama spent more than W. did even at the height of the economic crisis EVERY SINGLE YEAR HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE.



Guy, Bush inherited surpluses.  He was the one who decided that we needed to cut taxes for the rich while increasing government spending invading THE WRONG COUNTRY in response to 9/11.  



Oldstyle said:


> [
> As for Reagan's numbers?  Funny thing, Joe...Reagan worked out a deal with the Democratically controlled Congress where he would raise taxes if they would cut spending.  Reagan fulfilled his end of the bargain...only to have the Democrats renege on their part of that deal and NOT cut spending as agreed.



Mostly because there wasn't all that much to cut, really.  And the point of Reagan's tax increases was that working people ended up paying them, not the rich. 




Oldstyle said:


> [
> Reagan attempted to do the right thing...only to be double crossed by liberals in Congress.  Yet you liberals today point to his numbers on taxes and spending and blame Reagan for something that was in some ways forced upon him by Tip O'Neil and the Democrats.



Funny how Reagan was totally powerless for all the bad stuff that happened on his watch, but gosh darn, he totally caused the fall of the USSR by talking to a wall..


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> LOL...ah, yes...the old "percentage of growth" chart that you progressives LOVE to trot out to try and paint Reagan as a big spender and Barry as a "frugal" President.  It's laughable that any of you STILL think this little bit of statistical sleight of hand is going to stand up to even casual scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, it's a valid point.   IN the 200 years before Reagan, we only ran up a Trillion dollars in debt. WOrld Wars, Interstate highway system, Putting men on the fucking moon- we still lived within our means and paid our way! Then along came your boy Reagan who decided to give huge tax cuts to the rich while spending money on $200 hammers, and lo and behold, we ended up with two trillion more in debt- essentially tripling it, with another trillion added on under his boy Bush bailing out his Saving and Loan cronies.
> 
> Come on, tell me again how Republicans are about "fiscal responsibility".
> 
> And now you have all this interest on the debt, with the rich being so used to not paying their fair share you'd never get serious tax reform, and you gripe that when Bush-43 crashed worse than his Dad did (talk about an Oedipus complex!) Obama can't get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> All your pretty bar graph "measures" is what percentage any given President increased or decreased spending over the President who was in office before him.  In Obama's case, he followed W. who was dealing with the economic crash and utilizing massive amounts of Keynesian spending that all you liberals love so much to prop up the economy.  What your bar chart doesn't show is that Obama spent more than W. did even at the height of the economic crisis EVERY SINGLE YEAR HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, Bush inherited surpluses.  He was the one who decided that we needed to cut taxes for the rich while increasing government spending invading THE WRONG COUNTRY in response to 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> As for Reagan's numbers?  Funny thing, Joe...Reagan worked out a deal with the Democratically controlled Congress where he would raise taxes if they would cut spending.  Reagan fulfilled his end of the bargain...only to have the Democrats renege on their part of that deal and NOT cut spending as agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly because there wasn't all that much to cut, really.  And the point of Reagan's tax increases was that working people ended up paying them, not the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Reagan attempted to do the right thing...only to be double crossed by liberals in Congress.  Yet you liberals today point to his numbers on taxes and spending and blame Reagan for something that was in some ways forced upon him by Tip O'Neil and the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan was totally powerless for all the bad stuff that happened on his watch, but gosh darn, he totally caused the fall of the USSR by talking to a wall..
Click to expand...


Your boy Obama ran up trillion deficits in a single year!

Your boy Obama has one single deficit that dwarfs all 8 of Reagan's!

In fact, your Progressive Failure Obama has deficits that dwarf Reagan's entire Budget!  

Reagan beat the USSR and Obama got us downgraded


----------



## bedowin62

Frank; why bother responding to Joe B?

he's an unrepentent loser progressive wallowing in hypocrisy; living in the past


----------



## editec

ALL this thread proves is that people cannot have rational debates when they are working with two different sets of facts.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


>



How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?
Click to expand...




lmao

 more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan

crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives


----------



## CrusaderFrank

bedowin62 said:


> Frank; why bother responding to Joe B?
> 
> he's an unrepentent loser progressive wallowing in hypocrisy; living in the past



He's also a big fan of Josef Stalin and he claims to have served in the military but I believe it was the Soviet Army

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Camp

editec said:


> ALL this thread proves is that people cannot have rational debates when they are working with two different sets of facts.



No one has challanged the facts I have provided in regards to terrorist attacks and responses to those attacks (OR LACK OF) during the Reagan years.


----------



## bedowin62

CrusaderFrank said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank; why bother responding to Joe B?
> 
> he's an unrepentent loser progressive wallowing in hypocrisy; living in the past
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's also a big fan of Josef Stalin and he claims to have served in the military but I believe it was the Soviet Army
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Click to expand...




he is the LOSER who used to call himself armytimesssg ON AOL message boards; bulletman or 357 on MSNBC  message boards. he never served in a combat zone; not that it should matter but he is the one harping on his military service

he's a moron pure and simple


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lmao
> 
> more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan
> 
> crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives
Click to expand...

The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lmao
> 
> more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan
> 
> crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.
Click to expand...



no it's about accusing others of revisionist history; when in fact the accusers are more guilty of it than the people they are accusing of doing it

you're simply a joke

 Reagan couldnt do jack if his 8-year dem House majority and 2-year Senate majority didnt want him to.

 so many Dems voted for reagan's policies they had to invent the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT to describe them


what good is a thread that is a lie right from the start?

 oh yea i know; you idiot libs LIE TO YOURSELVES and then expect others to follow the false premises you built off the lies you told yourselves

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lmao
> 
> more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan
> 
> crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it's about accusing others of revisionist history; when in fact the accusers are more guilty of it than the people they are accusing of doing it
> 
> you're simply a joke
> 
> Reagan couldnt do jack if his 8-year dem House majority and 2-year Senate majority didnt want him to.
> 
> so many Dems voted for reagan's policies they had to invent the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT to describe them
> 
> 
> what good is a thread that is a lie right from the start?
> 
> oh yea i know; you idiot libs LIE TO YOURSELVES and then expect others to follow the false premises you built off the lies you told yourselves
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
Click to expand...


You still haven't learned what the term Reagan Democrat means. Are you to stupid or to lazy to google the term and learn what it meant? You keep insisting it refers to elected Representatives and Senators that supported his policies and hence voted for those policies because they agreed with them. I have asked you for a link to show that definition and you have failed to do that. But you just keep on using it and ignoring what every definition on any search site will give. If you understood the actual meaning of the term you might begin to understand that an era of comprimise and working for the good of the nation existed before the extremist and party first politicians came into being and took control. 
If it piss's you off that some people consider all the economic's of that era meaningless compared to what Reagan did to support and help create the era of terrorism and power obtained by terrorist thats just to bad. You don't get to decide what people consider priority issue's and what is more important than something else. 
You surely live in a delusional world if you think you can debate the topic of President Reagan without the simple basic knowledge of what a Reagan Democrat was and his contribution to creating modern day terrorism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan Democrat was a Democrat who voted with America and Reagan. They're now extinct

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it's about accusing others of revisionist history; when in fact the accusers are more guilty of it than the people they are accusing of doing it
> 
> you're simply a joke
> 
> Reagan couldnt do jack if his 8-year dem House majority and 2-year Senate majority didnt want him to.
> 
> so many Dems voted for reagan's policies they had to invent the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT to describe them
> 
> 
> what good is a thread that is a lie right from the start?
> 
> oh yea i know; you idiot libs LIE TO YOURSELVES and then expect others to follow the false premises you built off the lies you told yourselves
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't learned what the term Reagan Democrat means. Are you to stupid or to lazy to google the term and learn what it meant? You keep insisting it refers to elected Representatives and Senators that supported his policies and hence voted for those policies because they agreed with them. I have asked you for a link to show that definition and you have failed to do that. But you just keep on using it and ignoring what every definition on any search site will give. If you understood the actual meaning of the term you might begin to understand that an era of comprimise and working for the good of the nation existed before the extremist and party first politicians came into being and took control.
> If it piss's you off that some people consider all the economic's of that era meaningless compared to what Reagan did to support and help create the era of terrorism and power obtained by terrorist thats just to bad. You don't get to decide what people consider priority issue's and what is more important than something else.
> You surely live in a delusional world if you think you can debate the topic of President Reagan without the simple basic knowledge of what a Reagan Democrat was and his contribution to creating modern day terrorism.
Click to expand...


no loser; it's not that i havent learned; theproblem is you're far too much of an intellectual coward to admit i'm right
nothing you have posted; including the post above; reveals a definition of Reagan Democrat that differs from what you are whining about i've posted


you're a clown


----------



## bedowin62

seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it

 you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo

ur a JOKE


----------



## bedowin62

bedowin62 said:


> seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it
> 
> you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo
> 
> ur a JOKE





FURTHERMORE; it DOESNT MATTER;
 the point is idiots like you on the Left love to rant about Reagan; ignoring your own Party's history of cooperation on his agenda.

NOW you want to admit it while still whining about it.

 how does that work?

at the time; as YOU ADMIT; your own Party thought his ideas were great; for the "good of the country" as you indicate in YOUR OWN POST ABOVE


so stop your idiotic whining and just own it; you cant whine against policies you supported and not look like the moron you are


----------



## Camp

bedowin62 said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it
> 
> you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo
> 
> ur a JOKE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FURTHERMORE; it DOESNT MATTER;
> the point is idiots like you on the Left love to rant about Reagan; ignoring your own Party's history of cooperation on his agenda.
> 
> NOW you want to admit it while still whining about it.
> 
> how does that work?
> 
> at the time; as YOU ADMIT; your own Party thought his ideas were great; for the "good of the country" as you indicate in YOUR OWN POST ABOVE
> 
> 
> so stop your idiotic whining and just own it; you cant whine against policies you supported and not look like the moron you are
Click to expand...


Take a cool drink before you blow a gasket. After you cool down, google Reagan Democrat. Maybe even look up the word legacy. You might come to realize that Reagan doesn't have an economic legacy. None of his economic policies have withstood the test of time. They have no effect on todays economy. His policies in regards to terrorism and terrorist groups however, remain and continue to effect the world we live in. Hence, his legacy is fairly judged to be his impact on the creation of modern terrorism.


----------



## bedowin62

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it
> 
> you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo
> 
> ur a JOKE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FURTHERMORE; it DOESNT MATTER;
> the point is idiots like you on the Left love to rant about Reagan; ignoring your own Party's history of cooperation on his agenda.
> 
> NOW you want to admit it while still whining about it.
> 
> how does that work?
> 
> at the time; as YOU ADMIT; your own Party thought his ideas were great; for the "good of the country" as you indicate in YOUR OWN POST ABOVE
> 
> 
> so stop your idiotic whining and just own it; you cant whine against policies you supported and not look like the moron you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a cool drink before you blow a gasket. After you cool down, google Reagan Democrat. Maybe even look up the word legacy. You might come to realize that Reagan doesn't have an economic legacy. None of his economic policies have withstood the test of time. They have no effect on todays economy. His policies in regards to terrorism and terrorist groups however, remain and continue to effect the world we live in. Hence, his legacy is fairly judged to be his impact on the creation of modern terrorism.
Click to expand...




YAWN
 here you go just continuing to make a fool of yourself. you say none of Reagan's policies have an effect on today's economy?

 better get with literally dozens of your fellow LWNJs on these boards who INSIST we are still suffering because of Reagans' policies. which is it?
and since things are relative; what is obama's economic legacy genius? i cant wait to hear this!
what policies 'in regards to terrorism"?
are terrorists responsible for their actions?

and Carter installed the world's first islamo-fascist state when he decided  his fellow "man of God" (carter is an ordained minister) the Ayatollah Khomeini was a great choice for Iran


ur a joke

oh and AGAIN this thread is about re-writing history; which is what  you are doing


----------



## Camp

You don't know the difference between an effect and a legacy.


----------



## Oldstyle

With all due respect, Camp?  Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true.  There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them.  Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.


----------



## Iceweasel

Oldstyle said:


> With all due respect, Camp?  Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true.  There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them.  Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.


...which is exactly why they feel the need to rewrite history and destroy his legacy. It gets in the way.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> With all due respect, Camp?  Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true.  There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them.  Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.



Good point, but the word "espoused" gives the opportunity to debate. I will concede however that if Governors are indeed using his policies as differentiated from the original source in a composite way of his own compilation, that would constitute an originality that certainly would be worthy of accurately being viewed as a legacy.


----------



## Oldstyle

All you need to do is compare where Reagan had the country going by year six of his Administration with where Obama has the country going in year six of HIS Administration to know that Reagan had a much better grasp of economics and was doing a much better job of stimulating the US economy than Obama has.  It's quite frankly...not even close!


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Camp?  Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true.  There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them.  Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but the word "espoused" gives the opportunity to debate. I will concede however that if Governors are indeed using his policies as differentiated from the original source in a composite way of his own compilation, that would constitute an originality that certainly would be worthy of accurately being viewed as a legacy.
Click to expand...


LOL...I love it!  When I used to teach I always had a few kids that tried to hide the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about with "flowery" language.  Care to try that again in a sentence that's actually understandable, Camp?


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> All you need to do is compare where Reagan had the country going by year six of his Administration with where Obama has the country going in year six of HIS Administration to know that Reagan had a much better grasp of economics and was doing a much better job of stimulating the US economy than Obama has.  It's quite frankly...not even close!



I am not interested in comparing Reagan and Obama. I would be interested in being able to research the Governors you mention that are using Reagan policies. Kasich? Brown? Is there a Governor who has garnered less attention but is perhaps more Reagan like than either of these two?


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you need to do is compare where Reagan had the country going by year six of his Administration with where Obama has the country going in year six of HIS Administration to know that Reagan had a much better grasp of economics and was doing a much better job of stimulating the US economy than Obama has.  It's quite frankly...not even close!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in comparing Reagan and Obama. I would be interested in being able to research the Governors you mention that are using Reagan policies. Kasich? Brown? Is there a Governor who has garnered less attention but is perhaps more Reagan like than either of these two?
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't you want to compare Reagan and Obama?  I can't think of two more different approaches to the economy than those two...so let's examine what has worked and what hasn't over a six year period for each!

What Brown are you referring to?  I would hope that you're not calling Jerry Brown of California a Governor who's using Reagan's policies?


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, Camp?  Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true.  There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them.  Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but the word "espoused" gives the opportunity to debate. I will concede however that if Governors are indeed using his policies as differentiated from the original source in a composite way of his own compilation, that would constitute an originality that certainly would be worthy of accurately being viewed as a legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...I love it!  When I used to teach I always had a few kids that tried to hide the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about with "flowery" language.  Care to try that again in a sentence that's actually understandable, Camp?
Click to expand...


Try this. There was nothing original about Reagan's policies. He simply adapted the ideas of others. Some worked, some didn't. Not much of a legacy.


----------



## Oldstyle

As for what Republican Governors are having success using conservative principles?  Just off the top of my head...Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez...

Would you like to point out the Democratic Governors that are having success using liberal principles?  LOL


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> Try this. There was nothing original about Reagan's policies. He simply adapted the ideas of others. Some worked, some didn't. Not much of a legacy.


try this. Reagan didn't invent conservativism. Nobody said he did. And Obama didn't invent liberalism. Legacies are what they are, with or without your approval.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you need to do is compare where Reagan had the country going by year six of his Administration with where Obama has the country going in year six of HIS Administration to know that Reagan had a much better grasp of economics and was doing a much better job of stimulating the US economy than Obama has.  It's quite frankly...not even close!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in comparing Reagan and Obama. I would be interested in being able to research the Governors you mention that are using Reagan policies. Kasich? Brown? Is there a Governor who has garnered less attention but is perhaps more Reagan like than either of these two?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't you want to compare Reagan and Obama?  I can't think of two more different approaches to the economy than those two...so let's examine what has worked and what hasn't over a six year period for each!
> 
> What Brown are you referring to?  I would hope that you're not calling Jerry Brown of California a Governor who's using Reagan's policies?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I supported and followed Scott Brown, not a Governor. I have a lot of information about him and his ideas.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but the word "espoused" gives the opportunity to debate. I will concede however that if Governors are indeed using his policies as differentiated from the original source in a composite way of his own compilation, that would constitute an originality that certainly would be worthy of accurately being viewed as a legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...I love it!  When I used to teach I always had a few kids that tried to hide the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about with "flowery" language.  Care to try that again in a sentence that's actually understandable, Camp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try this. There was nothing original about Reagan's policies. He simply adapted the ideas of others. Some worked, some didn't. Not much of a legacy.
Click to expand...


Reagan espoused Supply Side economics when many on both sides of the aisle told him that he was out of his mind.  His very own Vice President described what Reagan sought to do as "Voodoo Economics"!  Yet Reagan believed in some basic economic fundamentals and stuck with them at serious political risk.  Give the man credit because what he did worked.  He was handed rampant Stagflation coming into office and by the time he left office he had turned the economy around and we were off to the races with the longest period of sustained economic growth in US history.  I'm sorry but THAT is quite a "legacy"!


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in comparing Reagan and Obama. I would be interested in being able to research the Governors you mention that are using Reagan policies. Kasich? Brown? Is there a Governor who has garnered less attention but is perhaps more Reagan like than either of these two?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't you want to compare Reagan and Obama?  I can't think of two more different approaches to the economy than those two...so let's examine what has worked and what hasn't over a six year period for each!
> 
> What Brown are you referring to?  I would hope that you're not calling Jerry Brown of California a Governor who's using Reagan's policies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I supported and followed Scott Brown, not a Governor. I have a lot of information about him and his ideas.
Click to expand...


Now you've totally lost me...I thought we were talking about Governors?  Scott Brown?


----------



## Camp

Iceweasel said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. There was nothing original about Reagan's policies. He simply adapted the ideas of others. Some worked, some didn't. Not much of a legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> try this. Reagan didn't invent conservativism. Nobody said he did. And Obama didn't invent liberalism. Legacies are what they are, with or without your approval.
Click to expand...


Reaganomics and conservatism are not the same. Reaganomics might be conservative but conservatism isn't always Reaganomics.
Sure is taking a long time to get a straight answer about what Republican Governor is folloowing the legacy of Ronald Reagan.  Anybody?


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. There was nothing original about Reagan's policies. He simply adapted the ideas of others. Some worked, some didn't. Not much of a legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> try this. Reagan didn't invent conservativism. Nobody said he did. And Obama didn't invent liberalism. Legacies are what they are, with or without your approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reaganomics and conservatism are not the same. Reaganomics might be conservative but conservatism isn't always Reaganomics.
> Sure is taking a long time to get a straight answer about what Republican Governor is folloowing the legacy of Ronald Reagan.  Anybody?
Click to expand...


I answered that several posts ago...what's taking a long time is a reply to my question to you to name some Governors that are having success following liberal principles.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try this. There was nothing original about Reagan's policies. He simply adapted the ideas of others. Some worked, some didn't. Not much of a legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> try this. Reagan didn't invent conservativism. Nobody said he did. And Obama didn't invent liberalism. Legacies are what they are, with or without your approval.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reaganomics and conservatism are not the same. Reaganomics might be conservative but conservatism isn't always Reaganomics.
> Sure is taking a long time to get a straight answer about what Republican Governor is folloowing the legacy of Ronald Reagan.  Anybody?
Click to expand...


Scott Walker, the non-recalled governor of WI

John Kaisch  Governor of Ohio


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> try this. Reagan didn't invent conservativism. Nobody said he did. And Obama didn't invent liberalism. Legacies are what they are, with or without your approval.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics and conservatism are not the same. Reaganomics might be conservative but conservatism isn't always Reaganomics.
> Sure is taking a long time to get a straight answer about what Republican Governor is folloowing the legacy of Ronald Reagan.  Anybody?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scott Walker, the non-recalled governor of WI
> 
> John Kaisch  Governor of Ohio
Click to expand...


Thank you


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> As for what Republican Governors are having success using conservative principles?  Just off the top of my head...Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez...
> 
> Would you like to point out the Democratic Governors that are having success using liberal principles?  LOL



^ Nice!


----------



## Oldstyle

With all due respect, Camp...the numbers nationally for Barack Obama would be appallingly bad if it WEREN'T for a bunch of Republican Governors creating jobs and turning their State economies around despite what has been happening in Washington DC.  If you were to exclude Republican led States from the economic "snapshot" of the Obama Administration what you would end up with would be as ugly as it gets.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics and conservatism are not the same. Reaganomics might be conservative but conservatism isn't always Reaganomics.
> Sure is taking a long time to get a straight answer about what Republican Governor is folloowing the legacy of Ronald Reagan.  Anybody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Walker, the non-recalled governor of WI
> 
> John Kaisch  Governor of Ohio
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you
Click to expand...


So are you going to name some Democratic Governors that have turned their States economies around using liberal principles, Camp?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Oldstyle said:


> With all due respect, Camp...the numbers nationally for Barack Obama would be appallingly bad if it WEREN'T for a bunch of Republican Governors creating jobs and turning their State economies around despite what has been happening in Washington DC.  If you were to exclude Republican led States from the economic "snapshot" of the Obama Administration what you would end up with would be as ugly as it gets.



TX is responsible for 25% of Obama's "Job Growth"

Is this finally the Summer of Recovery?


----------



## Oldstyle

States in many ways are a microcosm of our Federal Government.  It would seem to make sense that what works on a smaller scale should be emulated on a larger one...yet that isn't happening with this Administration.  My question is why?


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Walker, the non-recalled governor of WI
> 
> John Kaisch  Governor of Ohio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you going to name some Democratic Governors that have turned their States economies around using liberal principles, Camp?
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in defending liberal Governors. I have never been very interested in economics. My interest is in how Reaganomics are at work today. The discussion is about history and the Reagan legacy. Reaganomic principles are not so complicated. I want to look and see how they are being used, have they been adjusted to fit the times, what are the results, what are the chances that they will continue into the future. It seems the quickest and easyist way to do that is to examine how politicians are using them at present.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to name some Democratic Governors that have turned their States economies around using liberal principles, Camp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in defending liberal Governors. I have never been very interested in economics. My interest is in how Reaganomics are at work today. The discussion is about history and the Reagan legacy. Reaganomic principles are not so complicated. I want to look and see how they are being used, have they been adjusted to fit the times, what are the results, what are the chances that they will continue into the future. It seems the quickest and easyist way to do that is to examine how politicians are using them at present.
Click to expand...


LOL...well I understand your reluctance to defend liberal Governors, Camp but how can you critique one set of economic principles without talking about economic principles that run counter to them?  It's why I asked you to compare Reagan at year 6 of his administration with Obama at year 6 of his administration.  The two men have vastly different takes on economics and governance...surely we can look at what has taken place under each and reach some sort of conclusions as to whose ideas were more viable?


----------



## Oldstyle

Obviously, Camp wants no part of comparing Reagan at year 6 with Obama at year 6.  I can't say as I blame him...


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Obviously, Camp wants no part of comparing Reagan at year 6 with Obama at year 6.  I can't say as I blame him...



I have no interest nor expertise to compare econonics between Reagan and Obama, just as you have no interest nor expertise to compare terrorist policies between Reagan and Obama. Perhaps the economis policies of Reagan are so great in your mind that his horrible policies towards terrorism, IranContra, administrative corruption in boosting one set of terrorist to support another set of terrorist are irrelevant. I disagree and believe Reagan committed an unforgivable offense against our country. He helped give birth to the terrorist that we continue to fight 25 years after he is gone and will probably continue to fight for many years into the future. You can't debate that legacy.

You think tax policies. I think murdered Americans. You think GDP. I think 9/11. You think unemployment numbers. I think no retribution for blown up Marines. You think graphs and charts and I see kids falling from the sky over Lockerbie.


----------



## Oldstyle

Admit it, Camp...you very much want to turn this discussion to terrorism because you want no part of arguing the "merits" of Obama economic policy because you know as well as I do that Obama's record on the economy is awful.


----------



## Oldstyle

I'd be more than happy to discuss Reagan and terrorism.  To begin with...let's be fair to Reagan and say that hindsight is always 20/20.  What you see as Reagan's "unforgivable offense" was simply Reagan dealing with the world as it was in the latter stages of the Cold War.  The 'enemy' was not terrorists yet but a Soviet Union which still had designs on spreading communism worldwide.  Would Reagan have give military aid to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan if they were not fighting against the Soviets?  Highly doubtful.  Would Reagan have supplied the Contras with weapons if THEY were not fighting against a Soviet backed Sandinista regime?  Again, highly unlikely.  To be quite blunt...terrorists were still not seen as anything but a minor threat during Reagan's two terms.  They were seen as "tools" of the real threat...which was communism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, Camp wants no part of comparing Reagan at year 6 with Obama at year 6.  I can't say as I blame him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest nor expertise to compare econonics between Reagan and Obama, just as you have no interest nor expertise to compare terrorist policies between Reagan and Obama. Perhaps the economis policies of Reagan are so great in your mind that his horrible policies towards terrorism, IranContra, administrative corruption in boosting one set of terrorist to support another set of terrorist are irrelevant. I disagree and believe Reagan committed an unforgivable offense against our country. He helped give birth to the terrorist that we continue to fight 25 years after he is gone and will probably continue to fight for many years into the future. You can't debate that legacy.
> 
> You think tax policies. I think murdered Americans. You think GDP. I think 9/11. You think unemployment numbers. I think no retribution for blown up Marines. You think graphs and charts and I see kids falling from the sky over Lockerbie.
Click to expand...


Obama killed bin Laden so Val Jarrett could run AQ without any interference


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, Camp wants no part of comparing Reagan at year 6 with Obama at year 6.  I can't say as I blame him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest nor expertise to compare econonics between Reagan and Obama, just as you have no interest nor expertise to compare terrorist policies between Reagan and Obama. Perhaps the economis policies of Reagan are so great in your mind that his horrible policies towards terrorism, IranContra, administrative corruption in boosting one set of terrorist to support another set of terrorist are irrelevant. I disagree and believe Reagan committed an unforgivable offense against our country. He helped give birth to the terrorist that we continue to fight 25 years after he is gone and will probably continue to fight for many years into the future. You can't debate that legacy.
> 
> You think tax policies. I think murdered Americans. You think GDP. I think 9/11. You think unemployment numbers. I think no retribution for blown up Marines. You think graphs and charts and I see kids falling from the sky over Lockerbie.
Click to expand...


"Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, arrest warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for the bombing"

Where's Chris Stevens killers?

Hmmm


----------



## Dot Com

of ALL the former Repub Prez', Fox had to instruct their people to idolize the Gipper  Do some research people!!! The one who nickle & dimed the school lunch program so he's have more corp welfare for the already wealthy. That Gipper?


----------



## bedowin62

Dot Com said:


> of ALL the former Repub Prez', Fox had to instruct their people to idolize the Gipper  Do some research people!!!





George soros told you to make a hypocritical fool of yourself ranting about Fox


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Admit it, Camp...you very much want to turn this discussion to terrorism because you want no part of arguing the "merits" of Obama economic policy because you know as well as I do that Obama's record on the economy is awful.



Today was the first time I ever posted anything related to economics and Reagan. I brought economics up in the form of questions to see if what you guys get boners over has any merit or is just part of your fantasy worlds. You guys routinely get your ass's kicked about economics by some very well informed posters here. I've been posting about Reagan in regards to terrorism for months. All my post on this thread have been related to terrorism under the Reagan administration. If you guys had any real valid arguments you wouldn't have to always fall back on Obama and of all things, Benghazi.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, Camp wants no part of comparing Reagan at year 6 with Obama at year 6.  I can't say as I blame him...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest nor expertise to compare econonics between Reagan and Obama, just as you have no interest nor expertise to compare terrorist policies between Reagan and Obama. Perhaps the economis policies of Reagan are so great in your mind that his horrible policies towards terrorism, IranContra, administrative corruption in boosting one set of terrorist to support another set of terrorist are irrelevant. I disagree and believe Reagan committed an unforgivable offense against our country. He helped give birth to the terrorist that we continue to fight 25 years after he is gone and will probably continue to fight for many years into the future. You can't debate that legacy.
> 
> You think tax policies. I think murdered Americans. You think GDP. I think 9/11. You think unemployment numbers. I think no retribution for blown up Marines. You think graphs and charts and I see kids falling from the sky over Lockerbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, arrest warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for the bombing"
> 
> Where's Chris Stevens killers?
> 
> Hmmm
Click to expand...

But the brains behind the terrorist attack didn't get justice until a NATO air strike halted his convoy not to long ago and he was dragged out of a ditch, beat and shot before his remains were put on public display.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> I'd be more than happy to discuss Reagan and terrorism.  To begin with...let's be fair to Reagan and say that hindsight is always 20/20.  What you see as Reagan's "unforgivable offense" was simply Reagan dealing with the world as it was in the latter stages of the Cold War.  The 'enemy' was not terrorists yet but a Soviet Union which still had designs on spreading communism worldwide.  Would Reagan have give military aid to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan if they were not fighting against the Soviets?  Highly doubtful.  Would Reagan have supplied the Contras with weapons if THEY were not fighting against a Soviet backed Sandinista regime?  Again, highly unlikely.  To be quite blunt...terrorists were still not seen as anything but a minor threat during Reagan's two terms.  They were seen as "tools" of the real threat...which was communism.



Lame excuses. And the final stages of the USSR didn't occur under Reagan. They occured after he was gone. George Bush 41, the elder, the war hero was President during the final years of the USSR.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest nor expertise to compare econonics between Reagan and Obama, just as you have no interest nor expertise to compare terrorist policies between Reagan and Obama. Perhaps the economis policies of Reagan are so great in your mind that his horrible policies towards terrorism, IranContra, administrative corruption in boosting one set of terrorist to support another set of terrorist are irrelevant. I disagree and believe Reagan committed an unforgivable offense against our country. He helped give birth to the terrorist that we continue to fight 25 years after he is gone and will probably continue to fight for many years into the future. You can't debate that legacy.
> 
> You think tax policies. I think murdered Americans. You think GDP. I think 9/11. You think unemployment numbers. I think no retribution for blown up Marines. You think graphs and charts and I see kids falling from the sky over Lockerbie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, arrest warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for the bombing"
> 
> Where's Chris Stevens killers?
> 
> Hmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the brains behind the terrorist attack didn't get justice until a NATO air strike halted his convoy not to long ago and he was dragged out of a ditch, beat and shot before his remains were put on public display.
Click to expand...


Chris Stevens killers...still at large


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more than happy to discuss Reagan and terrorism.  To begin with...let's be fair to Reagan and say that hindsight is always 20/20.  What you see as Reagan's "unforgivable offense" was simply Reagan dealing with the world as it was in the latter stages of the Cold War.  The 'enemy' was not terrorists yet but a Soviet Union which still had designs on spreading communism worldwide.  Would Reagan have give military aid to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan if they were not fighting against the Soviets?  Highly doubtful.  Would Reagan have supplied the Contras with weapons if THEY were not fighting against a Soviet backed Sandinista regime?  Again, highly unlikely.  To be quite blunt...terrorists were still not seen as anything but a minor threat during Reagan's two terms.  They were seen as "tools" of the real threat...which was communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lame excuses. And the final stages of the USSR didn't occur under Reagan. They occured after he was gone. George Bush 41, the elder, the war hero was President during the final years of the USSR.
Click to expand...


I said latter stages of the Cold War...not the Soviet Union.

And what you term "excuses" are simply what Reagan was dealing with at that time.  I personally think Iran Contra was a policy mistake of epic proportion but I understand why it was done...people in the Reagan Administration felt very strongly that we should be supporting the Contras against the Sandinista regime and the Boland Amendment wouldn't allow that.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more than happy to discuss Reagan and terrorism.  To begin with...let's be fair to Reagan and say that hindsight is always 20/20.  What you see as Reagan's "unforgivable offense" was simply Reagan dealing with the world as it was in the latter stages of the Cold War.  The 'enemy' was not terrorists yet but a Soviet Union which still had designs on spreading communism worldwide.  Would Reagan have give military aid to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan if they were not fighting against the Soviets?  Highly doubtful.  Would Reagan have supplied the Contras with weapons if THEY were not fighting against a Soviet backed Sandinista regime?  Again, highly unlikely.  To be quite blunt...terrorists were still not seen as anything but a minor threat during Reagan's two terms.  They were seen as "tools" of the real threat...which was communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lame excuses. And the final stages of the USSR didn't occur under Reagan. They occured after he was gone. George Bush 41, the elder, the war hero was President during the final years of the USSR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said latter stages of the Cold War...not the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

When did the Cold War end?


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admit it, Camp...you very much want to turn this discussion to terrorism because you want no part of arguing the "merits" of Obama economic policy because you know as well as I do that Obama's record on the economy is awful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today was the first time I ever posted anything related to economics and Reagan. I brought economics up in the form of questions to see if what you guys get boners over has any merit or is just part of your fantasy worlds. You guys routinely get your ass's kicked about economics by some very well informed posters here. I've been posting about Reagan in regards to terrorism for months. All my post on this thread have been related to terrorism under the Reagan administration. If you guys had any real valid arguments you wouldn't have to always fall back on Obama and of all things, Benghazi.
Click to expand...


Who on here "routinely kicks my ass" about economics?  Joe B?  Deanie?  Rshermr? Sallow? Franco?  Between all of them put together, they don't have enough knowledge about economics to pass Economics 101 let alone make a compelling argument about the subject.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame excuses. And the final stages of the USSR didn't occur under Reagan. They occured after he was gone. George Bush 41, the elder, the war hero was President during the final years of the USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said latter stages of the Cold War...not the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Cold War end?
Click to expand...


I don't know as it has...

The Chinese had adopted some bits of capitalism to grow their economy but still have aspirations for more domination world wide and quite frankly I don't see anyone standing in their way at the moment.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, arrest warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for the bombing"
> 
> Where's Chris Stevens killers?
> 
> Hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> But the brains behind the terrorist attack didn't get justice until a NATO air strike halted his convoy not to long ago and he was dragged out of a ditch, beat and shot before his remains were put on public display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens killers...still at large
Click to expand...

Do we even know the identities of those people?
Really, you are comparing the deaths of an Ambassador and his 3 man secutity in an ambush assault and firefight with blowing an aircraft loaded with 259 civilians out of the sky to kill and additional 11 innocents on the ground in the town of Lockerbie.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said latter stages of the Cold War...not the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Cold War end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know as it has...
> 
> The Chinese had adopted some bits of capitalism to grow their economy but still have aspirations for more domination world wide and quite frankly I don't see anyone standing in their way at the moment.
Click to expand...


And maybe the bear has been in hibernation.


----------



## Oldstyle

At this point it's become rather obvious that the Obama Administration's top priority was never to catch the killers in Benghazi...with them it was about covering up their own ineptitude leading up to those murders...their failure to act during the attacks...and all the lying they did about it following what happened in Benghazi.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Cold War end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know as it has...
> 
> The Chinese had adopted some bits of capitalism to grow their economy but still have aspirations for more domination world wide and quite frankly I don't see anyone standing in their way at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And maybe the bear has been in hibernation.
Click to expand...


The Russian "bear" has an economy the size of Italy's at the moment...an economy that is almost solely dependent on the sale of gas and oil.  If the EU would grow some stones and hit Russia with a REAL embargo then I'm of the belief that Putin would back down.  He's gone after the Crimea because he reads weakness from the US and a reluctance by the EU nations to harm their economies by punishing him...a rather astute appraisal if truth be told.


----------



## Oldstyle

Of course if the US had made oil and gas production a priority we could now be offering to supply the EU with both in the event that an embargo against Russia was undertaken.  Under this President however production of oil and gas has been hampered not encouraged so we're not able to do that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

three farts in a row from you trollstyle.

that means i got you on ignore.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame excuses. And the final stages of the USSR didn't occur under Reagan. They occured after he was gone. George Bush 41, the elder, the war hero was President during the final years of the USSR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said latter stages of the Cold War...not the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Cold War end?
Click to expand...


not under reagans watch.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bedowin62 said:


> Frank; why bother responding to Joe B?
> 
> he's an unrepentent loser progressive wallowing in hypocrisy; living in the past



so says the hypocrite loser who whines and denys reality about reagan.

Yeah you're not living in the past,thats why you're posting here in the HISTORY section.talk about a hypocrite. you reaganuts sure got the funniest fucked up logic.

He must really have severe reading comprehension problems failing to see  that he is in the HISTORY section.

Looks like he has been hanging around with frank too much listening to his rants.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> ALL this thread proves is that people cannot have rational debates when they are working with two different sets of facts.



it proves you cannot have rational debates with reaganut worshippers.thats for sure.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lmao
> 
> more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan
> 
> crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.
Click to expand...


that logic and common sense seems to escape the reagan worshippers.

notice how like clockwork,when confronted with pesky facts about the corruption of ronald reagan and his failed presidency,they retreat to how bad obama is?


Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle  
Obviously, Camp wants no part of comparing Reagan at year 6 with Obama at year 6. I can't say as I blame him...

still MORE proof that  trollstyle and the reagannut worshippers retreat to Obamas bad economy and his failed presidency,  when confronted with facts about how reagan betrayed the american people.classic evasion mode as always,they are so predictable.doesnt matter that we have made it all crystal  clear that we dont deny that Obama is corrupt as well.comedy gold. whats really comedy gold though is the post from Editec where he posted every president since reagan has been corrupt just like him,they forget that little post.


what a hypocrite trollstyle.all he does here is WHINE about the facts that expose how corrupt reagan was and how he betrayed the american people denying that reality changing the topic talking about how Obama has ruined the economy when cornered with these facts claming they arent true.


whats ironic about his post is like i have said a thousand times,like every president since reagan,Obama has done an excellent job of following reagans footsteps following his lead betraying the american people ALSO shipping jobs overseas.they deny that reality that reagan was the father of it all that got it all started of course.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> What an asskicking thread this was for those of you still clinging to the REAGAN myths.
> 
> Facts have an annoying way of not going away, not even after decades of lies trying to cover them up.
> 
> Now I know both DEMS and REPS are gonna hate me for saying this but *REAGAN was just one more TOOL in a line of Presidents who are tools for the masters.*
> 
> This nation has NOT had a _real change of administrations_ since CARTER left office.
> 
> Oh the puppets change, but the puppet-masters are the same shadowy figures as always.
> 
> When did these people grow so bold?
> 
> I'm guessing after they managed to off JFK and get away with it.



which as usual,proves they have reading and memory comprehension problems since they can never remember this post here no matter how many times i post it.

I am going to keep bringing this post up in the future since it is easily the best post on this thread bar none.  this in fact is what I say to the poster who posted it-


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the brains behind the terrorist attack didn't get justice until a NATO air strike halted his convoy not to long ago and he was dragged out of a ditch, beat and shot before his remains were put on public display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens killers...still at large
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do we even know the identities of those people?
> Really, you are comparing the deaths of an Ambassador and his 3 man secutity in an ambush assault and firefight with blowing an aircraft loaded with 259 civilians out of the sky to kill and additional 11 innocents on the ground in the town of Lockerbie.
Click to expand...


We know their identities. Your boy Obama won't go after them.

The Pan am 103 bomber was upset with how Libyans were portrayed in "Back to the Future" 

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you going to name some Democratic Governors that have turned their States economies around using liberal principles, Camp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in defending liberal Governors. I have never been very interested in economics. My interest is in how Reaganomics are at work today. The discussion is about history and the Reagan legacy. Reaganomic principles are not so complicated. I want to look and see how they are being used, have they been adjusted to fit the times, what are the results, what are the chances that they will continue into the future. It seems the quickest and easyist way to do that is to examine how politicians are using them at present.
Click to expand...


oh reaganomics will continue in the future alright.thats a given.as long as we have this corrupt ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two so  the american sheople-the reagunt worshippers,think they have a choice in who gets elected. it will continue.his policys.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens killers...still at large
> 
> 
> 
> Do we even know the identities of those people?
> Really, you are comparing the deaths of an Ambassador and his 3 man secutity in an ambush assault and firefight with blowing an aircraft loaded with 259 civilians out of the sky to kill and additional 11 innocents on the ground in the town of Lockerbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know their identities. Your boy Obama won't go after them.
> 
> The Pan am 103 bomber was upset with how Libyans were portrayed in "Back to the Future"
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Click to expand...


Is this a fart? Or, is this a joke about a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people? If you know the answer of who the Benghazi murderers were, why don't you name them?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan never had a Republican Congress and actually took a bullet for his beliefs. I believe Bush had no small part in the assassination. Reagan did all he could do under the circumstances

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we even know the identities of those people?
> Really, you are comparing the deaths of an Ambassador and his 3 man secutity in an ambush assault and firefight with blowing an aircraft loaded with 259 civilians out of the sky to kill and additional 11 innocents on the ground in the town of Lockerbie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know their identities. Your boy Obama won't go after them.
> 
> The Pan am 103 bomber was upset with how Libyans were portrayed in "Back to the Future"
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this a fart? Or, is this a joke about a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people? If you know the answer of who the Benghazi murderers were, why don't you name them?
Click to expand...


No, you're the joke

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan Democrat was a Democrat who voted with America and Reagan. They're now extinct
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk



That's where you are getting a tad confused.  

A Reagan Democrat is someone like Congressman Bill Lipinski. (incidently, I went to the same grammar school as Bill's daughter, Laura.)  He's someone who would vote with the Democrats on economic issues, but voted with Reagan on military issues and some social issues.  

THe main reason why they are "extinct" is that with the end of the Cold War, it's kind of hard to justify spending money on invisible planes you can't fly into war zones when your kid's schools are crumbling.  

SO Bill retired, his son Danny is now Congressman for that district,a nd wouldn't be caught dead voting with the Republicans.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know their identities. Your boy Obama won't go after them.
> 
> The Pan am 103 bomber was upset with how Libyans were portrayed in "Back to the Future"
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a fart? Or, is this a joke about a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people? If you know the answer of who the Benghazi murderers were, why don't you name them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're the joke
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Click to expand...

Just give us the names.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> At this point it's become rather obvious that the Obama Administration's top priority was never to catch the killers in Benghazi...with them it was about covering up their own ineptitude leading up to those murders...their failure to act during the attacks...and all the lying they did about it following what happened in Benghazi.



Yawn...  

Nobody cares about Benghazi but inbreds who watch Faux News. 

The rest of us have moved on.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Obviously, Camp wants no part of comparing Reagan at year 6 with Obama at year 6.  I can't say as I blame him...



IN year Six of Reagan, Reagan's team got caught selling weapons to terrorist Iran and diverting the money to drug dealing rebels in Central America. 

I think nothing Obama has done really compares to that.  

And I'm not someone who really holds Iran-Contra against Reagan. It's pretty clear he had some guys in his operation with their own agendas.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> I'd be more than happy to discuss Reagan and terrorism.  To begin with...let's be fair to Reagan and say that hindsight is always 20/20.  What you see as Reagan's "unforgivable offense" was simply Reagan dealing with the world as it was in the latter stages of the Cold War.  The 'enemy' was not terrorists yet but a Soviet Union which still had designs on spreading communism worldwide.  Would Reagan have give military aid to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan if they were not fighting against the Soviets?  Highly doubtful.  Would Reagan have supplied the Contras with weapons if THEY were not fighting against a Soviet backed Sandinista regime?  Again, highly unlikely.  To be quite blunt...terrorists were still not seen as anything but a minor threat during Reagan's two terms.  They were seen as "tools" of the real threat...which was communism.



The problems with that PRemise is that if the USSR was more of a "threat" it was because the bellicose rhetoric of Reagan made them one.  We had really made quite a lot of progress toward Detente from Nixon to Carter.

Let's start with the Contras. These clowns smuggled drugs into the US, helping with epidemic of cocaine that flooded the country in the 1980's.   

The Muhajadeen in Afghanistan became Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  

BUt, dammit, we had to keep those dirty stinking Commies from giving away rich people's stuff and teaching girls to Read!!! 

Talk about your fucked up priorities.  Soviet Union has been gone for 25 years now, but the drug epidemic and terrorism are still with us.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan never had a Republican Congress and actually took a bullet for his beliefs. *I believe Bush had no small part in the assassination*. Reagan did all he could do under the circumstances



Ahhh.... Bush was part of the assassination plot.  

And now Fwankie goes full retard.


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, arrest warrants were issued for two Libyan nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands after protracted negotiations and UN sanctions. In 2001, Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for the bombing"
> 
> Where's Chris Stevens killers?
> 
> Hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> But the brains behind the terrorist attack didn't get justice until a NATO air strike halted his convoy not to long ago and he was dragged out of a ditch, beat and shot before his remains were put on public display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris Stevens killers...still at large
Click to expand...


Were the rapists of American nuns in Central America ever held accountable by Reagan? 




> This was a very convenient lie for the incoming Reagan administration, which was obligated to prove to Congress that El Salvador was making progress on human rights as a condition for continued U.S. aid. Reagan was unburdened by any of the human rights concerns that his predecessor Jimmy Carter claimed to care so much about, and the new president turned a blind eye to the most horrendous abuses as he ramped up military and economic aid to El Salvador. Secretary of State Alexander Haig even had the audacity to go before Congress and declare that the four American churchwomen may have been responsible for their own deaths.



 Reagan


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan never had a Republican Congress and actually took a bullet for his beliefs. *I believe Bush had no small part in the assassination*. Reagan did all he could do under the circumstances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.... Bush was part of the assassination plot.
> 
> And now Fwankie goes full retard.
Click to expand...


He will not tolerate people who don't fluff his & William Kristol's idol lol

Ironic part is that the extremist would be labelled a moderate by "today's repub party"


----------



## thanatos144

Reagan was a great man and a great president.  Democrats hate him because he was a great man and they hate success 

tapatalk post


----------



## Dot Com

he was a sportscaster. Which other rw politician was a sportscaster


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point it's become rather obvious that the Obama Administration's top priority was never to catch the killers in Benghazi...with them it was about covering up their own ineptitude leading up to those murders...their failure to act during the attacks...and all the lying they did about it following what happened in Benghazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> Nobody cares about Benghazi but inbreds who watch Faux News.
> 
> The rest of us have moved on.
Click to expand...


Moved on?  Really?  We haven't caught the people who did it but you've "moved on"?  Nice to know that what's REALLY important to you is protecting Barack Obama at all costs.  The deaths of an American Ambassador and three other Americans obviously means nothing to you.


----------



## Oldstyle

So let's summarize here...Joe doesn't *care* about guns being run into Mexico that killed innocent Mexican nationals as well as a US Border Patrol Officer...Joe doesn't *care* about our US Ambassador to Libya and three others being killed...Joe doesn't *care* about the IRS being used to target political opponents...Joe doesn't *care* that Barack Obama lied to the American people about being able to keep their health insurance and doctor if they liked them and Middle Class families health care premiums going down an average of $2,500 a year!

Nah, none of those things bothers, Joe...because Joe is a card carrying progressive and to him...the end justifies the means.


----------



## RKMBrown

Oldstyle said:


> So let's summarize here...Joe doesn't *care* about guns being run into Mexico that killed innocent Mexican nationals as well as a US Border Patrol Officer...Joe doesn't *care* about our US Ambassador to Libya and three others being killed...Joe doesn't *care* about the IRS being used to target political opponents...Joe doesn't *care* that Barack Obama lied to the American people about being able to keep their health insurance and doctor if they liked them and Middle Class families health care premiums going down an average of $2,500 a year!
> 
> Nah, none of those things bothers, Joe...because Joe is a card carrying progressive and to him...the end justifies the means.



More particularly, Joe is a self admitted card carrying Marxist with a raging hard-on for communist rule.


----------



## Oldstyle

What I find particularly amusing about these Reagan strings is that Reagan is twenty years in the past...yet liberals would rather discuss HIS policies then than discuss Barack Obama's now!  I know the past five years have been "underwhelming" (and that's being generous!) but Barry is STILL your guy!  He's the most brilliant President we've ever had (according to you progressives anyways...) so why do you want to talk about just about anything else other than what HE has done in the five plus years he's been in office?


----------



## RKMBrown

Oldstyle said:


> What I find particularly amusing about these Reagan strings is that Reagan is twenty years in the past...yet liberals would rather discuss HIS policies then than discuss Barack Obama's now!  I know the past five years have been "underwhelming" (and that's being generous!) but Barry is STILL your guy!  He's the most brilliant President we've ever had (according to you progressives anyways...) so why do you want to talk about just about anything else other than what HE has done in the five plus years he's been in office?



Cause they want the gravy train to keep rolling?


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point it's become rather obvious that the Obama Administration's top priority was never to catch the killers in Benghazi...with them it was about covering up their own ineptitude leading up to those murders...their failure to act during the attacks...and all the lying they did about it following what happened in Benghazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> Nobody cares about Benghazi but inbreds who watch Faux News.
> 
> The rest of us have moved on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moved on?  Really?  We haven't caught the people who did it but you've "moved on"?  Nice to know that what's REALLY important to you is protecting Barack Obama at all costs.  The deaths of an American Ambassador and three other Americans obviously means nothing to you.
Click to expand...


The deaths of 4500 Service Members and 100,000+ Iraqis in a war over a lie doesn't mean much to you.  I find it hilarious that you think that a major catastrophe over weapons that didn't exist doesn't phase you, but darn it, you are really, really still upset about whether or not those Arabs were mad about a Video, or whether they really thought that the CIA was using that consulate, or if they were just doing a 9/11 celebration attack. 

Fact is, you clowns on the right didn't care that Bush hadn't caught Bin Laden in 8 years, wasn't even trying anymore after a certain point. (He had to get Saddam for trying to kill his pappy!)  

So, yeah, I guess that's sad and all, but we aren't going to arrest a whole mob.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> What I find particularly amusing about these Reagan strings is that Reagan is twenty years in the past...yet liberals would rather discuss HIS policies then than discuss Barack Obama's now!  I know the past five years have been "underwhelming" (and that's being generous!) but Barry is STILL your guy!  He's the most brilliant President we've ever had (according to you progressives anyways...) so why do you want to talk about just about anything else other than what HE has done in the five plus years he's been in office?



Guy, there are five hundred threads on Obama in "Politics".  Probably more in the FLame Zone, which is where most of them end up, and a few in "Clean Debate", but I never go there, because frankly, there's only so much ODS I can stand to read without saying something nasty.  

What I find amusing is how RIght Wingers have built up a mythical Reagan because they really don't want to talk about any other president with an "R" behind his name. Nixon, FOrd and the BUshes?  Nothing to write home about with any of those guys. 

But you can pretend Reagan won the Cold War by talking to a wall if you ignore all his liberal policies and destruction of the middle class and support of terrorists and drug dealers.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> So let's summarize here...Joe doesn't *care* about guns being run into Mexico that killed innocent Mexican nationals as well as a US Border Patrol Officer...



Guy, guns are being run into Mexico all the time because they are too easy to buy in this country, something both our government and Mexico's agree is a problem.  The people who don't agree- the NRA. 

Hey, if you want to end guns into Mexico, maybe you should make them harder to buy in this country. 



Oldstyle said:


> Joe doesn't *care* about our US Ambassador to Libya and three others being killed...



They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. And two of them were overpaid private security contractors, can't get worked up about those mercenaries. 



Oldstyle said:


> Joe doesn't *care* about the IRS being used to target political opponents...



Yes, I really don't care that crazy people didn't get fraudelent tax exemptions. 



Oldstyle said:


> Joe doesn't *care* that Barack Obama lied to the American people about being able to keep their health insurance and doctor if they liked them and Middle Class families health care premiums going down an average of $2,500 a year!



There was no garuntee before that.  Heck, I'd like to still have the health insurance and job I had in 2008.  Oh, wait. No. I lost those because I actually tried to use them.  



Oldstyle said:


> Nah, none of those things bothers, Joe...because Joe is a card carrying progressive and to him...the end justifies the means.



Naw, none of those things bother me because most of them didn't happen, and I realize who my real enemies are. 

The 1%ers who have plenty, but still want what little I have.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> Nobody cares about Benghazi but inbreds who watch Faux News.
> 
> The rest of us have moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moved on?  Really?  We haven't caught the people who did it but you've "moved on"?  Nice to know that what's REALLY important to you is protecting Barack Obama at all costs.  The deaths of an American Ambassador and three other Americans obviously means nothing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The deaths of 4500 Service Members and 100,000+ Iraqis in a war over a lie doesn't mean much to you.  I find it hilarious that you think that a major catastrophe over weapons that didn't exist doesn't phase you, but darn it, you are really, really still upset about whether or not those Arabs were mad about a Video, or whether they really thought that the CIA was using that consulate, or if they were just doing a 9/11 celebration attack.
> 
> Fact is, you clowns on the right didn't care that Bush hadn't caught Bin Laden in 8 years, wasn't even trying anymore after a certain point. (He had to get Saddam for trying to kill his pappy!)
> 
> So, yeah, I guess that's sad and all, but we aren't going to arrest a whole mob.
Click to expand...


Mob?  Oh, so we're back to calling this a mob upset by a video, Joe?  This was a well planned attack carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terrorist group and we haven't brought ANYONE to justice for it yet.  The lies that this Administration told about mobs protesting videos were disgusting enough but what's laughable is how many Obama supporters are STILL trying to pretend that's what happened!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find particularly amusing about these Reagan strings is that Reagan is twenty years in the past...yet liberals would rather discuss HIS policies then than discuss Barack Obama's now!  I know the past five years have been "underwhelming" (and that's being generous!) but Barry is STILL your guy!  He's the most brilliant President we've ever had (according to you progressives anyways...) so why do you want to talk about just about anything else other than what HE has done in the five plus years he's been in office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, there are five hundred threads on Obama in "Politics".  Probably more in the FLame Zone, which is where most of them end up, and a few in "Clean Debate", but I never go there, because frankly, there's only so much ODS I can stand to read without saying something nasty.
> 
> What I find amusing is how RIght Wingers have built up a mythical Reagan because they really don't want to talk about any other president with an "R" behind his name. Nixon, FOrd and the BUshes?  Nothing to write home about with any of those guys.
> 
> But you can pretend Reagan won the Cold War by talking to a wall if you ignore all his liberal policies and destruction of the middle class and support of terrorists and drug dealers.
Click to expand...


Reagan brought America out of the morass of Stagflation that Jimmy Carter didn't have a clue how to fix and set us on a path where we experienced the longest sustained growth in our economy in US history.  *THAT* is why Ronald Reagan is remembered fondly by conservatives and why you liberals feel the need to attack him relentlessly.  He DID something that Barry, Harry and Nancy couldn't do...namely fix the economy and bring prosperity to America.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's summarize here...Joe doesn't *care* about guns being run into Mexico that killed innocent Mexican nationals as well as a US Border Patrol Officer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, guns are being run into Mexico all the time because they are too easy to buy in this country, something both our government and Mexico's agree is a problem.  The people who don't agree- the NRA.
> 
> Hey, if you want to end guns into Mexico, maybe you should make them harder to buy in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe doesn't *care* about our US Ambassador to Libya and three others being killed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. And two of them were overpaid private security contractors, can't get worked up about those mercenaries.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I really don't care that crazy people didn't get fraudelent tax exemptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe doesn't *care* that Barack Obama lied to the American people about being able to keep their health insurance and doctor if they liked them and Middle Class families health care premiums going down an average of $2,500 a year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no garuntee before that.  Heck, I'd like to still have the health insurance and job I had in 2008.  Oh, wait. No. I lost those because I actually tried to use them.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, none of those things bothers, Joe...because Joe is a card carrying progressive and to him...the end justifies the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, none of those things bother me because most of them didn't happen, and I realize who my real enemies are.
> 
> The 1%ers who have plenty, but still want what little I have.
Click to expand...


What's disgusting about Fast & Furious is that the justification for what the Holder Justice Department DID with that program seems to be an attempt to show that tougher gun laws were needed in the US because guns were flowing unchecked into Mexico and causing problems.  It's akin to encouraging local drug dealers to sell more drugs in the neighborhood so you can point out that there's a drug problem and crack down on it.  This Administration showed total disregard for the Mexican people that it put in danger with Fast & Furious...only stopping the program after a US Border Agent was killed and the national media was shamed into covering the story.

Someone knowing a job is dangerous doesn't give their bosses the right to endanger them even more and then abandon them when danger does occur.  What happened in Benghazi is shameful because it didn't have to happen.  And discounting the deaths of the two men at the Annex because they were "mercenaries" is a disgusting tactic.  Those two men gave their lives trying to save a US Ambassador and to protect US soil.  The fact that you care more about saving Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton's reputations then you do about the deaths of such men speaks volumes about your value system!

As for the IRS?  You're too fucking stupid to realize that using the IRS for political ends is wrong *no matter who is doing it*!  This time it was liberals using the IRS to handicap conservatives...the next time it could very well be conservatives returning the favor!  This SHOULD be something intelligent people agree on...which is why I'm not surprised that you don't grasp the dangers involved...

There are no guarantees?  Funny, Joe...the American people were guaranteed by Barack Obama that if they liked the healthcare plan they had...they could keep it...PERIOD!  They were guaranteed by Barack Obama that if they liked their doctor...they could keep them...PERIOD!  And if they backed the ACA, Barack Obama guaranteed Middle Class Americans that their health insurance premiums would go down an average of $2,500 a year.  There are no guarantees?  What you are really saying is that nothing Barack Obama promised is guaranteed because those were lies that he told to get the ACA passed.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

thanatos144 said:


> Reagan was a great man and a great president.  Democrats hate him because he was a great man and they hate success
> 
> tapatalk post



whatever  zionist shill.

that tells me you are murderer who loves to  murder people as well.

Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans


Before any conservative dismisses what we have to say about Reagan on this site just because we are liberals, after taking a good hard look at the record, the very conservative site Jesus-is-Savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm came to many of the very same conclusions that we reached, i.e. ( in their own words) : 
        "Let us remember Reagan as he really was : 



&#8226;Liar 
&#8226;Thief 
&#8226;Mass murderer 
&#8226;Supporter of abortion 
&#8226;War criminal 
&#8226; 
&#8226; 

&#8226;Destroyer of freedom 
&#8226;Traitor of the American people 
&#8226;Corporate whore 
&#8226;Destroyer of the environment 
&#8226;Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "
&#8226;
&#8226;




Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration :
         "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
 from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday),


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL this thread proves is that people cannot have rational debates when they are working with two different sets of facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has challanged the facts I have provided in regards to terrorist attacks and responses to those attacks (OR LACK OF) during the Reagan years.
Click to expand...


thats the norm for the reaganut worshippers as Im sure you have noticed they have failed to challenge my facts I just posted in my last post despite the fact I have posted it over a hundred times here on this thread.

the reagnuts clearly have no debating skills whatsoever,they would never last one minute in a debating hall and would be laughed out in that time frame.Here they know they can hide behind the computer and troll.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> LOL...ah, yes...the old "percentage of growth" chart that you progressives LOVE to trot out to try and paint Reagan as a big spender and Barry as a "frugal" President.  It's laughable that any of you STILL think this little bit of statistical sleight of hand is going to stand up to even casual scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, it's a valid point.   IN the 200 years before Reagan, we only ran up a Trillion dollars in debt. WOrld Wars, Interstate highway system, Putting men on the fucking moon- we still lived within our means and paid our way! Then along came your boy Reagan who decided to give huge tax cuts to the rich while spending money on $200 hammers, and lo and behold, we ended up with two trillion more in debt- essentially tripling it, with another trillion added on under his boy Bush bailing out his Saving and Loan cronies.
> 
> Come on, tell me again how Republicans are about "fiscal responsibility".
> 
> And now you have all this interest on the debt, with the rich being so used to not paying their fair share you'd never get serious tax reform, and you gripe that when Bush-43 crashed worse than his Dad did (talk about an Oedipus complex!) Obama can't get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> All your pretty bar graph "measures" is what percentage any given President increased or decreased spending over the President who was in office before him.  In Obama's case, he followed W. who was dealing with the economic crash and utilizing massive amounts of Keynesian spending that all you liberals love so much to prop up the economy.  What your bar chart doesn't show is that Obama spent more than W. did even at the height of the economic crisis EVERY SINGLE YEAR HE'S BEEN IN OFFICE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, Bush inherited surpluses.  He was the one who decided that we needed to cut taxes for the rich while increasing government spending invading THE WRONG COUNTRY in response to 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> As for Reagan's numbers?  Funny thing, Joe...Reagan worked out a deal with the Democratically controlled Congress where he would raise taxes if they would cut spending.  Reagan fulfilled his end of the bargain...only to have the Democrats renege on their part of that deal and NOT cut spending as agreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly because there wasn't all that much to cut, really.  And the point of Reagan's tax increases was that working people ended up paying them, not the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Reagan attempted to do the right thing...only to be double crossed by liberals in Congress.  Yet you liberals today point to his numbers on taxes and spending and blame Reagan for something that was in some ways forced upon him by Tip O'Neil and the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan was totally powerless for all the bad stuff that happened on his watch, but gosh darn, he totally caused the fall of the USSR by talking to a wall..
Click to expand...


as always,Trollstyle like all reagan worshippers,gets his ass handed to him on a platter and taken to school.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it's about accusing others of revisionist history; when in fact the accusers are more guilty of it than the people they are accusing of doing it
> 
> you're simply a joke
> 
> Reagan couldnt do jack if his 8-year dem House majority and 2-year Senate majority didnt want him to.
> 
> so many Dems voted for reagan's policies they had to invent the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT to describe them
> 
> 
> what good is a thread that is a lie right from the start?
> 
> oh yea i know; you idiot libs LIE TO YOURSELVES and then expect others to follow the false premises you built off the lies you told yourselves
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't learned what the term Reagan Democrat means. Are you to stupid or to lazy to google the term and learn what it meant? You keep insisting it refers to elected Representatives and Senators that supported his policies and hence voted for those policies because they agreed with them. I have asked you for a link to show that definition and you have failed to do that. But you just keep on using it and ignoring what every definition on any search site will give. If you understood the actual meaning of the term you might begin to understand that an era of comprimise and working for the good of the nation existed before the extremist and party first politicians came into being and took control.
> If it piss's you off that some people consider all the economic's of that era meaningless compared to what Reagan did to support and help create the era of terrorism and power obtained by terrorist thats just to bad. You don't get to decide what people consider priority issue's and what is more important than something else.
> You surely live in a delusional world if you think you can debate the topic of President Reagan without the simple basic knowledge of what a Reagan Democrat was and his contribution to creating modern day terrorism.
Click to expand...


He's so brainwashed by the LAMESTREAM media,he probably isnt even aware that Reagan was a democrat before becoming a republican. that there is no difference between the two parties which is why he switched over.

btw,got a question on that for ya,check your pm box.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it
> 
> you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo
> 
> ur a JOKE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FURTHERMORE; it DOESNT MATTER;
> the point is idiots like you on the Left love to rant about Reagan; ignoring your own Party's history of cooperation on his agenda.
> 
> NOW you want to admit it while still whining about it.
> 
> how does that work?
> 
> at the time; as YOU ADMIT; your own Party thought his ideas were great; for the "good of the country" as you indicate in YOUR OWN POST ABOVE
> 
> 
> so stop your idiotic whining and just own it; you cant whine against policies you supported and not look like the moron you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a cool drink before you blow a gasket. After you cool down, google Reagan Democrat. Maybe even look up the word legacy. You might come to realize that Reagan doesn't have an economic legacy. None of his economic policies have withstood the test of time. They have no effect on todays economy. His policies in regards to terrorism and terrorist groups however, remain and continue to effect the world we live in. Hence, his legacy is fairly judged to be his impact on the creation of modern terrorism.
Click to expand...


the reaganuts sure have meltdowns when confronted with pesky facts they dont want to face.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admit it, Camp...you very much want to turn this discussion to terrorism because you want no part of arguing the "merits" of Obama economic policy because you know as well as I do that Obama's record on the economy is awful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today was the first time I ever posted anything related to economics and Reagan. I brought economics up in the form of questions to see if what you guys get boners over has any merit or is just part of your fantasy worlds. You guys routinely get your ass's kicked about economics by some very well informed posters here. I've been posting about Reagan in regards to terrorism for months. All my post on this thread have been related to terrorism under the Reagan administration. If you guys had any real valid arguments you wouldn't have to always fall back on Obama and of all things, Benghazi.
Click to expand...


stands up and gives standing ovation. 

second best post on this thread after Editecs. you nailed it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more than happy to discuss Reagan and terrorism.  To begin with...let's be fair to Reagan and say that hindsight is always 20/20.  What you see as Reagan's "unforgivable offense" was simply Reagan dealing with the world as it was in the latter stages of the Cold War.  The 'enemy' was not terrorists yet but a Soviet Union which still had designs on spreading communism worldwide.  Would Reagan have give military aid to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan if they were not fighting against the Soviets?  Highly doubtful.  Would Reagan have supplied the Contras with weapons if THEY were not fighting against a Soviet backed Sandinista regime?  Again, highly unlikely.  To be quite blunt...terrorists were still not seen as anything but a minor threat during Reagan's two terms.  They were seen as "tools" of the real threat...which was communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lame excuses. And the final stages of the USSR didn't occur under Reagan. They occured after he was gone. George Bush 41, the elder, the war hero was President during the final years of the USSR.
Click to expand...


pesky facts like that they cant seem to comprehend.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more than happy to discuss Reagan and terrorism.  To begin with...let's be fair to Reagan and say that hindsight is always 20/20.  What you see as Reagan's "unforgivable offense" was simply Reagan dealing with the world as it was in the latter stages of the Cold War.  The 'enemy' was not terrorists yet but a Soviet Union which still had designs on spreading communism worldwide.  Would Reagan have give military aid to "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan if they were not fighting against the Soviets?  Highly doubtful.  Would Reagan have supplied the Contras with weapons if THEY were not fighting against a Soviet backed Sandinista regime?  Again, highly unlikely.  To be quite blunt...terrorists were still not seen as anything but a minor threat during Reagan's two terms.  They were seen as "tools" of the real threat...which was communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problems with that PRemise is that if the USSR was more of a "threat" it was because the bellicose rhetoric of Reagan made them one.  We had really made quite a lot of progress toward Detente from Nixon to Carter.
> 
> Let's start with the Contras. These clowns smuggled drugs into the US, helping with epidemic of cocaine that flooded the country in the 1980's.
> 
> The Muhajadeen in Afghanistan became Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
> 
> BUt, dammit, we had to keep those dirty stinking Commies from giving away rich people's stuff and teaching girls to Read!!!
> 
> Talk about your fucked up priorities.  Soviet Union has been gone for 25 years now, but the drug epidemic and terrorism are still with us.
Click to expand...




trollstyle and the reagan worshippers  cant grasp facts that Reagan only extended the cold war with  russia that Gorby wanted to end by putting missiles in europe when they were wanting to withdraw them after Gorby took over.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Mob?  Oh, so we're back to calling this a mob upset by a video, Joe?  This was a well planned attack carried out by an Al Queda affiliated terrorist group and we haven't brought ANYONE to justice for it yet.  The lies that this Administration told about mobs protesting videos were disgusting enough but what's laughable is how many Obama supporters are STILL trying to pretend that's what happened!



Do you have proof it was a "well-organized" attack, or is this just more shit you heard on Hate Radio? 

Muslims in 20 countries protested that sick ass video.  ANd you'd have us believe that no, no, it was a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda who just happened to know that Ambassador Stevens would be in town that day.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Reagan brought America out of the morass of Stagflation that Jimmy Carter didn't have a clue how to fix and set us on a path where we experienced the longest sustained growth in our economy in US history.  *THAT* is why Ronald Reagan is remembered fondly by conservatives and why you liberals feel the need to attack him relentlessly.  He DID something that Barry, Harry and Nancy couldn't do...namely fix the economy and bring prosperity to America.



I lived through the 1970's... guy, it wasn't that bad.  It also had something called "A Middle Class", which was kind of cool, too bad we don't have one of those anymore.  

Reagan is remembered fondly because his profound fuckups all came home to roost on someone else's watch. Unlike other Republicans who got caught red handing fucking things up.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan never had a Republican Congress and actually took a bullet for his beliefs. *I believe Bush had no small part in the assassination*. Reagan did all he could do under the circumstances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.... Bush was part of the assassination plot.
> 
> And now Fwankie goes full retard.
Click to expand...


Crusader Retard goes into meltdown mode so much in his rants-"hense why I FNALLY decided to put him on ignore recently-was stupid not to do it several months ago," he goes into metdown mode blowing his gasket so much that he never gets calm enough to understand the facts that Reagans policys drastically changed after the assassination attempt,that he started serving wall street and the establishment at that point betraying the middle class familys shipping jobs overseas and giving tax cuts only to the rich.

to his credit,in the beginning,his first couple months in office he wasnt being the establishments puppet-hense the assassination WARNING shot he got-intentionally deciding to wound him but getting too careless and and shooting him way too close more than intended,Reagan then caved in and cowardly served wall street and the elite after that.

oh and Frank is actually correct about that on Bush.Bush had a hand in the JFK assassination.google in THE JFK BUSH CONNECTION. the establishment wasnt happy with reagan at first because he initially wasnt serving them so to speed up their new world order agenda-which is Bush,Clinton and Obama are all on record saying we need,they tried to get rid of Reagan and get Bush in.Bush was former CIA remember? and dont forget how LBJ had a huge hand in the JFK assassination.

after the assassination attempt,reagan caved in and became their willing puppet serving the elite and wall street and betraying ther american people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan never had a Republican Congress and actually took a bullet for his beliefs. *I believe Bush had no small part in the assassination*. Reagan did all he could do under the circumstances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.... Bush was part of the assassination plot.
> 
> And now Fwankie goes full retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He will not tolerate people who don't fluff his & William Kristol's idol lol
> 
> Ironic part is that the extremist would be labelled a moderate by "today's repub party"
Click to expand...


thats why he goes into meltdown mode and has to take pills to control his high blood pressure all the time.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> What's disgusting about Fast & Furious is that the justification for what the Holder Justice Department DID with that program seems to be an attempt to show that tougher gun laws were needed in the US because guns were flowing unchecked into Mexico and causing problems.  It's akin to encouraging local drug dealers to sell more drugs in the neighborhood so you can point out that there's a drug problem and crack down on it.  This Administration showed total disregard for the Mexican people that it put in danger with Fast & Furious...only stopping the program after a US Border Agent was killed and the national media was shamed into covering the story.




your entire premise here is flawed.  No one DISPUTES that too many guns from the US are finding their way into Mexico.  About 200,000 a year. Holder didn't have to prove that any more than he had to prove the Sky was Blue.  The ATF was trying to prove who was doing some of the smuggling by tracking 200 of the 200,000 guns that are moved into Mexico every year because, shit, anyone can walk into a gun store in Arizona and buy a gun. 






Oldstyle said:


> [
> Someone knowing a job is dangerous doesn't give their bosses the right to endanger them even more and then abandon them when danger does occur.  What happened in Benghazi is shameful because it didn't have to happen.  And discounting the deaths of the two men at the Annex because they were "mercenaries" is a disgusting tactic.  Those two men gave their lives trying to save a US Ambassador and to protect US soil.  The fact that you care more about saving Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton's reputations then you do about the deaths of such men speaks volumes about your value system!



again, guy, you keep avoiding it, but you spend a lot of time defending bush who sent 5000 Americans to death on a LIE!!!!  

There were not WMD's in Iraq. 

And, no, can't get worked up about two mercenaries working for a company that got a billion dollar contract and apparently couldn't keep the Ambassador safe.  Oh, not surprisingly, the people doing the whining the loudest on Faux News?  The families of the mercenaries. 




Oldstyle said:


> [
> As for the IRS?  You're too fucking stupid to realize that using the IRS for political ends is wrong *no matter who is doing it*!  This time it was liberals using the IRS to handicap conservatives...the next time it could very well be conservatives returning the favor!  This SHOULD be something intelligent people agree on...which is why I'm not surprised that you don't grasp the dangers involved...



What handicapped conservatives is that they think Palin is smart. 

Frankly, Republicans give us wars and recessions, the worst thing Obama is doing is not letting me get a fraudelent tax deduction, I consider myself to be a bit ahead. 




Oldstyle said:


> [
> There are no guarantees?  Funny, Joe...the American people were guaranteed by Barack Obama that if they liked the healthcare plan they had...they could keep it...PERIOD!  They were guaranteed by Barack Obama that if they liked their doctor...they could keep them...PERIOD!  And if they backed the ACA, Barack Obama guaranteed Middle Class Americans that their health insurance premiums would go down an average of $2,500 a year.  There are no guarantees?  What you are really saying is that nothing Barack Obama promised is guaranteed because those were lies that he told to get the ACA passed.



Yup, the guy should have never spoken in absolutes.  I guess what he should have said was, "99% of you will either be keeping your plan or getting a better one, or will actualy be able to get one, but 1% of you won't because your plans suck and Big Insurance is totally ripping you off selling you that."  

BUt frankly, I still have the same insurance I had before ObamaCare and so do most folks I know.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> Nobody cares about Benghazi but inbreds who watch Faux News.
> 
> The rest of us have moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moved on?  Really?  We haven't caught the people who did it but you've "moved on"?  Nice to know that what's REALLY important to you is protecting Barack Obama at all costs.  The deaths of an American Ambassador and three other Americans obviously means nothing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The deaths of 4500 Service Members and 100,000+ Iraqis in a war over a lie doesn't mean much to you.  I find it hilarious that you think that a major catastrophe over weapons that didn't exist doesn't phase you, but darn it, you are really, really still upset about whether or not those Arabs were mad about a Video, or whether they really thought that the CIA was using that consulate, or if they were just doing a 9/11 celebration attack.
> 
> Fact is, you clowns on the right didn't care that Bush hadn't caught Bin Laden in 8 years, wasn't even trying anymore after a certain point. (He had to get Saddam for trying to kill his pappy!)
> 
> So, yeah, I guess that's sad and all, but we aren't going to arrest a whole mob.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find particularly amusing about these Reagan strings is that Reagan is twenty years in the past...yet liberals would rather discuss HIS policies then than discuss Barack Obama's now!  I know the past five years have been "underwhelming" (and that's being generous!) but Barry is STILL your guy!  He's the most brilliant President we've ever had (according to you progressives anyways...) so why do you want to talk about just about anything else other than what HE has done in the five plus years he's been in office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, there are five hundred threads on Obama in "Politics".  Probably more in the FLame Zone, which is where most of them end up, and a few in "Clean Debate", but I never go there, because frankly, there's only so much ODS I can stand to read without saying something nasty.
> 
> What I find amusing is how RIght Wingers have built up a mythical Reagan because they really don't want to talk about any other president with an "R" behind his name. Nixon, FOrd and the BUshes?  Nothing to write home about with any of those guys.
> 
> But you can pretend Reagan won the Cold War by talking to a wall if you ignore all his liberal policies and destruction of the middle class and support of terrorists and drug dealers.
Click to expand...




trollsytely like all reagan worshippers retreats to Obama again.

funny hoe trollstyle and the reagnut worshippers ignore the facts that bacause of reagan,innocent women and children are STILL paying for him arming terrorists over there because every president since then has continued the policys of reagan shipping jobs overseas and starting and provoking wars.


----------



## thanatos144

9/11 inside job said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was a great man and a great president.  Democrats hate him because he was a great man and they hate success
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever  zionist shill.
> 
> that tells me you are murderer who loves to  murder people as well.
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
> 
> 
> Before any conservative dismisses what we have to say about Reagan on this site just because we are liberals, after taking a good hard look at the record, the very conservative site Jesus-is-Savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm came to many of the very same conclusions that we reached, i.e. ( in their own words) :
> "Let us remember Reagan as he really was :
> 
> 
> 
> Liar
> Thief
> Mass murderer
> Supporter of abortion
> War criminal
> 
> 
> 
> Destroyer of freedom
> Traitor of the American people
> Corporate whore
> Destroyer of the environment
> Supporter of Satanists & child murderers "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan's Criminal Administration :
> "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
> from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday),
Click to expand...


Go play in traffic you Jew hating asshole 

tapatalk post


----------



## regent

The beauty of Reagan was the way he handled himself in the Iran-Contra investigation. In that hearing Reagan used the old tried and true method of saying "I forget" 124 times.


----------



## Dot Com

regent said:


> The beauty of Reagan was the way he handled himself in the Iran-Contra investigation. In that hearing Reagan used the old tried and true method of saying "I forget" 124 times.



That was very cringe-worthy yes.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> What's disgusting about Fast & Furious is that the justification for what the Holder Justice Department DID with that program seems to be an attempt to show that tougher gun laws were needed in the US because guns were flowing unchecked into Mexico and causing problems.  It's akin to encouraging local drug dealers to sell more drugs in the neighborhood so you can point out that there's a drug problem and crack down on it.  This Administration showed total disregard for the Mexican people that it put in danger with Fast & Furious...only stopping the program after a US Border Agent was killed and the national media was shamed into covering the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your entire premise here is flawed.  No one DISPUTES that too many guns from the US are finding their way into Mexico.  About 200,000 a year. Holder didn't have to prove that any more than he had to prove the Sky was Blue.  The ATF was trying to prove who was doing some of the smuggling by tracking 200 of the 200,000 guns that are moved into Mexico every year because, shit, anyone can walk into a gun store in Arizona and buy a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Someone knowing a job is dangerous doesn't give their bosses the right to endanger them even more and then abandon them when danger does occur.  What happened in Benghazi is shameful because it didn't have to happen.  And discounting the deaths of the two men at the Annex because they were "mercenaries" is a disgusting tactic.  Those two men gave their lives trying to save a US Ambassador and to protect US soil.  The fact that you care more about saving Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton's reputations then you do about the deaths of such men speaks volumes about your value system!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, guy, you keep avoiding it, but you spend a lot of time defending bush who sent 5000 Americans to death on a LIE!!!!
> 
> There were not WMD's in Iraq.
> 
> And, no, can't get worked up about two mercenaries working for a company that got a billion dollar contract and apparently couldn't keep the Ambassador safe.  Oh, not surprisingly, the people doing the whining the loudest on Faux News?  The families of the mercenaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> As for the IRS?  You're too fucking stupid to realize that using the IRS for political ends is wrong *no matter who is doing it*!  This time it was liberals using the IRS to handicap conservatives...the next time it could very well be conservatives returning the favor!  This SHOULD be something intelligent people agree on...which is why I'm not surprised that you don't grasp the dangers involved...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What handicapped conservatives is that they think Palin is smart.
> 
> Frankly, Republicans give us wars and recessions, the worst thing Obama is doing is not letting me get a fraudelent tax deduction, I consider myself to be a bit ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There are no guarantees?  Funny, Joe...the American people were guaranteed by Barack Obama that if they liked the healthcare plan they had...they could keep it...PERIOD!  They were guaranteed by Barack Obama that if they liked their doctor...they could keep them...PERIOD!  And if they backed the ACA, Barack Obama guaranteed Middle Class Americans that their health insurance premiums would go down an average of $2,500 a year.  There are no guarantees?  What you are really saying is that nothing Barack Obama promised is guaranteed because those were lies that he told to get the ACA passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, the guy should have never spoken in absolutes.  I guess what he should have said was, "99% of you will either be keeping your plan or getting a better one, or will actualy be able to get one, but 1% of you won't because your plans suck and Big Insurance is totally ripping you off selling you that."
> 
> BUt frankly, I still have the same insurance I had before ObamaCare and so do most folks I know.
Click to expand...


Let's take your nonsense one ridiculous bit at a time...shall we?

Please explain to me what the Holder Justice Department was trying to accomplish when they started up Fast & Furious, Joe?  We'd already discovered that we couldn't track guns that "walked" from the US into Mexico...even with the cooperation of the Mexican Government!  That was something that was attempted during the Bush Administration and the program was scrapped because they weren't able to keep track of the guns.  So what was Holder's ATF doing restarting a failed program once again?  What was it that they hoped to accomplish?  And why did they not ever attempt to track the guns that were walked or arrest those doing the smuggling.  THAT was what had veteran ATF agents up in arms!  They couldn't for the life of them figure out what the fuck they were DOING with Fast & Furious!  Nobody was being arrested...guns were being given to some of the most dangerous narco-terrorists on the planet...and nobody in the Holder Justice Department seemed to care.  It wasn't until some ATF agent's went to the press with details about Border Agent Brian Terry's murder with a weapon that was "walked" under Fast & Furious that the program was FINALLY stopped.  That's right...they were STILL running it even AFTER Terry's death!


----------



## Oldstyle

Did you REALLY just accuse the families of those murdered in Benghazi of "whining"?  They'd like to know what happened to their loved ones...why they were killed and why nobody from this White House seemed to respond to the attack.  They'd also like to know why the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the White House Press Secretary and the US's UN Ambassador lied to them and the American people about what caused the attacks.

The only "whining" that I'm hearing is from Barack Obama disciples who want this scandal to go away before answers have been given TO the families and the American people!


----------



## Oldstyle

And what the fuck does Sarah Palin have to do with the IRS scandal?  You don't have an answer to explain what happened at the IRS so you bring up Palin's intelligence?  Jesus, but that's some stupid shit!


----------



## Oldstyle

Obama shouldn't have spoken in "absolutes"?  Obama shouldn't have LIED to the American people about what the ACA was going to do to their lives when it kicked in.  He lied about people being able to keep their plans if they liked them...he lied about them being able to keep their doctor...he lied about it lowering healthcare costs for Middle Class families.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Did you REALLY just accuse the families of those murdered in Benghazi of "whining"?  They'd like to know what happened to their loved ones...why they were killed and why nobody from this White House seemed to respond to the attack.  They'd also like to know why the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the White House Press Secretary and the US's UN Ambassador lied to them and the American people about what caused the attacks.
> 
> The only "whining" that I'm hearing is from Barack Obama disciples who want this scandal to go away before answers have been given TO the families and the American people!



Guy, troops were on the ground at Benghazi within hours of the attack.  (As opposed to Bush on 9/11, who really needed to find out what happened to that goat.) 

And frankly, the CIA is the one who told the President and the SoS and UN Ambassador, that, "Um, yeah, those guys were really made about the video in Libya. Just like they were mad about it in Egypt and Yemen and Lebanon and all the other places they had riots about it."  

Now, realizing you are not a rational person, but exactly what do you think Obama and Co. were 'covering up' exactly?  We know they were dead, we know who killed them, there's a little question as to why. 

But, no, the Faux News audience, who are still shitting themselves about a brother in the White House, know it must be some vastly complicated conspiracy!!!!!!


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Obama shouldn't have spoken in "absolutes"?  Obama shouldn't have LIED to the American people about what the ACA was going to do to their lives when it kicked in.  He lied about people being able to keep their plans if they liked them...he lied about them being able to keep their doctor...he lied about it lowering healthcare costs for Middle Class families.



The ACA is going to make most of our lives better.  

And frankly, if you are so stupid that you like a plan where the Insurance companies take your money and don't provide any real coverage, you already like being lied to, so I'm not seeing the problem here.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> And what the fuck does Sarah Palin have to do with the IRS scandal?  You don't have an answer to explain what happened at the IRS so you bring up Palin's intelligence?  Jesus, but that's some stupid shit!



No, guy, you are just too stupid to understand.  

I'll make it easier for you.

You did NOT lose in 2012 because Granny Teabagger couldn't get her fraudulent tax exemption and her big bag of Cash from the Koch Brothers.  

You lost because you nominate stupid people. You nominate some freak who thinks he's wearing Magic Underwear and he's the sanest one of the lot. You put Palin a heartbeat away from the president, and you wonder why people run screaming from you.   You have guys who put the words "Legitimate' and "Gift from God" in front of the word "Rape" and you wonder why women are absolutely terrified of what America might look like under your guidence. 

And frankly, you live in your own little bubble of Hate Radio and Faux News, and wonder why the rest of the world doesn't think your way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you REALLY just accuse the families of those murdered in Benghazi of "whining"?  They'd like to know what happened to their loved ones...why they were killed and why nobody from this White House seemed to respond to the attack.  They'd also like to know why the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the White House Press Secretary and the US's UN Ambassador lied to them and the American people about what caused the attacks.
> 
> The only "whining" that I'm hearing is from Barack Obama disciples who want this scandal to go away before answers have been given TO the families and the American people!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, troops were on the ground at Benghazi within hours of the attack.  (As opposed to Bush on 9/11, who really needed to find out what happened to that goat.)
> 
> And frankly, the CIA is the one who told the President and the SoS and UN Ambassador, that, "Um, yeah, those guys were really made about the video in Libya. Just like they were mad about it in Egypt and Yemen and Lebanon and all the other places they had riots about it."
> 
> Now, realizing you are not a rational person, but exactly what do you think Obama and Co. were 'covering up' exactly?  We know they were dead, we know who killed them, there's a little question as to why.
> 
> But, no, the Faux News audience, who are still shitting themselves about a brother in the White House, know it must be some vastly complicated conspiracy!!!!!!
Click to expand...


^ Liar


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you REALLY just accuse the families of those murdered in Benghazi of "whining"?  They'd like to know what happened to their loved ones...why they were killed and why nobody from this White House seemed to respond to the attack.  They'd also like to know why the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the White House Press Secretary and the US's UN Ambassador lied to them and the American people about what caused the attacks.
> 
> The only "whining" that I'm hearing is from Barack Obama disciples who want this scandal to go away before answers have been given TO the families and the American people!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, troops were on the ground at Benghazi within hours of the attack.  (As opposed to Bush on 9/11, who really needed to find out what happened to that goat.)
> 
> And frankly, the CIA is the one who told the President and the SoS and UN Ambassador, that, "Um, yeah, those guys were really made about the video in Libya. Just like they were mad about it in Egypt and Yemen and Lebanon and all the other places they had riots about it."
> 
> Now, realizing you are not a rational person, but exactly what do you think Obama and Co. were 'covering up' exactly?  We know they were dead, we know who killed them, there's a little question as to why.
> 
> But, no, the Faux News audience, who are still shitting themselves about a brother in the White House, know it must be some vastly complicated conspiracy!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Are you serious?  Not only were troops not on the ground at Benghazi within hours of the attack...THEY WEREN'T THERE A WEEK LATER!  THE FBI COULDN'T INVESTIGATE THE CONSULATE SITE BECAUSE IT WAS JUDGED TO BE TOO UNSAFE!  The fact is, Barry never sent the troops!  Then you compare what Obama did in Libya with what Bush did in Afghanistan?  Again...are you fucking serious?  Bush went into Afghanistan and took out the entire Taliban apparatus in less time then it's taken Barry to arrest the first person involved in the Benghazi attacks!

As for what they were covering up?  Their own incompetence and total lack of a meaningful response to what happened in Benghazi...that's what they were covering up!  Barack Obama was running for reelection on a theme of "I killed Osama bin Laden and have Al Queda on the run!" and suddenly here is an Al Queda affiliated group of terrorists attacking our consulate and killing our Ambassador!!!  Holy political embarrassment, Batman!!!  That's going to make it look like we're full of shit with our claim that Al Queda's on the run...what should we do?  Oh, I know...we'll blame it on some obscure Youtube video and a mob protest that got out of hand and hope our buddies in the Main Stream media cover our asses until after the election!  They actually had the balls to throw the idiot who made that cheesy little video in prison while they blamed HIM for what happened in Benghazi when they knew all along that there was no protest that escalated into an attack.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Let's take your nonsense one ridiculous bit at a time...shall we?
> 
> Please explain to me what the Holder Justice Department was trying to accomplish when they started up Fast & Furious, Joe?  We'd already discovered that we couldn't track guns that "walked" from the US into Mexico...even with the cooperation of the Mexican Government!  That was something that was attempted during the Bush Administration and the program was scrapped because they weren't able to keep track of the guns.  So what was Holder's ATF doing restarting a failed program once again?  What was it that they hoped to accomplish?  And why did they not ever attempt to track the guns that were walked or arrest those doing the smuggling.  THAT was what had veteran ATF agents up in arms!  They couldn't for the life of them figure out what the fuck they were DOING with Fast & Furious!  Nobody was being arrested...guns were being given to some of the most dangerous narco-terrorists on the planet...and nobody in the Holder Justice Department seemed to care.  It wasn't until some ATF agent's went to the press with details about Border Agent Brian Terry's murder with a weapon that was "walked" under Fast & Furious that the program was FINALLY stopped.  That's right...they were STILL running it even AFTER Terry's death!



Oh, so your logic is because one investigation failed, we totally need to give up on all investigations, then?  

And frankly, you guys had no problem with arming "Narco-Terrorists" when Reagan (remember him?) armed the Contras.  

Incidently, it was the same ATF (an agency you wingnuts usually hate!) that ran Fast and Furious, not HOlder. 

Of course, the reason why they lost track of so many guns is because this all happened in Arizona, where Jared Loughner and his imaginary friends can walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked. 

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features



> Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.
> 
> How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general's report is submitted.)


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what the fuck does Sarah Palin have to do with the IRS scandal?  You don't have an answer to explain what happened at the IRS so you bring up Palin's intelligence?  Jesus, but that's some stupid shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, you are just too stupid to understand.
> 
> I'll make it easier for you.
> 
> You did NOT lose in 2012 because Granny Teabagger couldn't get her fraudulent tax exemption and her big bag of Cash from the Koch Brothers.
> 
> You lost because you nominate stupid people. You nominate some freak who thinks he's wearing Magic Underwear and he's the sanest one of the lot. You put Palin a heartbeat away from the president, and you wonder why people run screaming from you.   You have guys who put the words "Legitimate' and "Gift from God" in front of the word "Rape" and you wonder why women are absolutely terrified of what America might look like under your guidence.
> 
> And frankly, you live in your own little bubble of Hate Radio and Faux News, and wonder why the rest of the world doesn't think your way.
Click to expand...


Oh, so now what liberals did with the IRS is OK because the GOP nominates "stupid people"?  That excuses using the IRS to target your political opponents?  

And I hate to point out the obvious but when it comes to intelligence, Palin is so much smarter than Biden it isn't even funny!  Joe's having a good day when he doesn't drool on himself!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Let's take your nonsense one ridiculous bit at a time...shall we?
> 
> Please explain to me what the Holder Justice Department was trying to accomplish when they started up Fast & Furious, Joe?  We'd already discovered that we couldn't track guns that "walked" from the US into Mexico...even with the cooperation of the Mexican Government!  That was something that was attempted during the Bush Administration and the program was scrapped because they weren't able to keep track of the guns.  So what was Holder's ATF doing restarting a failed program once again?  What was it that they hoped to accomplish?  And why did they not ever attempt to track the guns that were walked or arrest those doing the smuggling.  THAT was what had veteran ATF agents up in arms!  They couldn't for the life of them figure out what the fuck they were DOING with Fast & Furious!  Nobody was being arrested...guns were being given to some of the most dangerous narco-terrorists on the planet...and nobody in the Holder Justice Department seemed to care.  It wasn't until some ATF agent's went to the press with details about Border Agent Brian Terry's murder with a weapon that was "walked" under Fast & Furious that the program was FINALLY stopped.  That's right...they were STILL running it even AFTER Terry's death!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so your logic is because one investigation failed, we totally need to give up on all investigations, then?
> 
> And frankly, you guys had no problem with arming "Narco-Terrorists" when Reagan (remember him?) armed the Contras.
> 
> Incidently, it was the same ATF (an agency you wingnuts usually hate!) that ran Fast and Furious, not HOlder.
> 
> Of course, the reason why they lost track of so many guns is because this all happened in Arizona, where Jared Loughner and his imaginary friends can walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked.
> 
> The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.
> 
> How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general's report is submitted.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Here's a newsflash for you, Joe...the ATF is part of the Justice Department which is run by the Attorney General.  Duh?  Are you going to have one of those days when EVERYTHING you post is stupid?


----------



## Meathead

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Let's take your nonsense one ridiculous bit at a time...shall we?
> 
> Please explain to me what the Holder Justice Department was trying to accomplish when they started up Fast & Furious, Joe?  We'd already discovered that we couldn't track guns that "walked" from the US into Mexico...even with the cooperation of the Mexican Government!  That was something that was attempted during the Bush Administration and the program was scrapped because they weren't able to keep track of the guns.  So what was Holder's ATF doing restarting a failed program once again?  What was it that they hoped to accomplish?  And why did they not ever attempt to track the guns that were walked or arrest those doing the smuggling.  THAT was what had veteran ATF agents up in arms!  They couldn't for the life of them figure out what the fuck they were DOING with Fast & Furious!  Nobody was being arrested...guns were being given to some of the most dangerous narco-terrorists on the planet...and nobody in the Holder Justice Department seemed to care.  It wasn't until some ATF agent's went to the press with details about Border Agent Brian Terry's murder with a weapon that was "walked" under Fast & Furious that the program was FINALLY stopped.  That's right...they were STILL running it even AFTER Terry's death!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so your logic is because one investigation failed, we totally need to give up on all investigations, then?
> 
> And frankly, you guys had no problem with arming "Narco-Terrorists" when Reagan (remember him?) armed the Contras.
> 
> Incidently, it was the same ATF (an agency you wingnuts usually hate!) that ran Fast and Furious, not HOlder.
> 
> Of course, the reason why they lost track of so many guns is because this all happened in Arizona, where Jared Loughner and his imaginary friends can walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked.
> 
> The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.
> 
> How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general's report is submitted.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you, Joe...the ATF is part of the Justice Department which is run by the Attorney General.  Duh?  Are you going to have one of those days when EVERYTHING you post is stupid?
Click to expand...

You might as well be arguing with a houseplant.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama shouldn't have spoken in "absolutes"?  Obama shouldn't have LIED to the American people about what the ACA was going to do to their lives when it kicked in.  He lied about people being able to keep their plans if they liked them...he lied about them being able to keep their doctor...he lied about it lowering healthcare costs for Middle Class families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA is going to make most of our lives better.
> 
> And frankly, if you are so stupid that you like a plan where the Insurance companies take your money and don't provide any real coverage, you already like being lied to, so I'm not seeing the problem here.
Click to expand...


If you are an average Middle Class American the ACA is NOT going to make your life "better"!  It's going to raise your healthcare costs to pay for the coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and those getting large subsidies on their premiums...while lowering the quality of care you get.  That's the REALITY of the ACA.  You still buy into the bullshit that Obama, Reid and Pelosi gave us to get this joke of a bill passed in the first place even though it's becoming increasingly apparent that they lied about much of what they were telling us which makes you either extremely naive or extremely stupid!


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> Are you serious?  Not only were troops not on the ground at Benghazi within hours of the attack...THEY WEREN'T THERE A WEEK LATER!  THE FBI COULDN'T INVESTIGATE THE CONSULATE SITE BECAUSE IT WAS JUDGED TO BE TOO UNSAFE!  The fact is, Barry never sent the troops!  Then you compare what Obama did in Libya with what Bush did in Afghanistan?  Again...are you fucking serious?  Bush went into Afghanistan and took out the entire Taliban apparatus in less time then it's taken Barry to arrest the first person involved in the Benghazi attacks!
> 
> As for what they were covering up?  Their own incompetence and total lack of a meaningful response to what happened in Benghazi...that's what they were covering up!  Barack Obama was running for reelection on a theme of "I killed Osama bin Laden and have Al Queda on the run!" and suddenly here is an Al Queda affiliated group of terrorists attacking our consulate and killing our Ambassador!!!  Holy political embarrassment, Batman!!!  That's going to make it look like we're full of shit with our claim that Al Queda's on the run...what should we do?  Oh, I know...we'll blame it on some obscure Youtube video and a mob protest that got out of hand and hope our buddies in the Main Stream media cover our asses until after the election!  They actually had the balls to throw the idiot who made that cheesy little video in prison while they blamed HIM for what happened in Benghazi when they knew all along that there was no protest that escalated into an attack.



Guy, a simple google search proves you wrong. 

Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded - CBS News

Sorry, there were troops in Tripoli the night of the attack, and more the next day. 

And frankly, your Mormon Scumbucket tries to use Ambassador Steven's coffin as a soapbox, and he looked pretty creepy when he did it.  (Then again, a non-creepy Mormon is a sight to behold.)


----------



## Oldstyle

Meathead said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so your logic is because one investigation failed, we totally need to give up on all investigations, then?
> 
> And frankly, you guys had no problem with arming "Narco-Terrorists" when Reagan (remember him?) armed the Contras.
> 
> Incidently, it was the same ATF (an agency you wingnuts usually hate!) that ran Fast and Furious, not HOlder.
> 
> Of course, the reason why they lost track of so many guns is because this all happened in Arizona, where Jared Loughner and his imaginary friends can walk into a gun store and buy a gun, no questions asked.
> 
> The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you, Joe...the ATF is part of the Justice Department which is run by the Attorney General.  Duh?  Are you going to have one of those days when EVERYTHING you post is stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might as well be arguing with a houseplant.
Click to expand...


That's an insult to houseplants, Meat!  They don't post the same kind of laughably stupid stuff that Joe does!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Not only were troops not on the ground at Benghazi within hours of the attack...THEY WEREN'T THERE A WEEK LATER!  THE FBI COULDN'T INVESTIGATE THE CONSULATE SITE BECAUSE IT WAS JUDGED TO BE TOO UNSAFE!  The fact is, Barry never sent the troops!  Then you compare what Obama did in Libya with what Bush did in Afghanistan?  Again...are you fucking serious?  Bush went into Afghanistan and took out the entire Taliban apparatus in less time then it's taken Barry to arrest the first person involved in the Benghazi attacks!
> 
> As for what they were covering up?  Their own incompetence and total lack of a meaningful response to what happened in Benghazi...that's what they were covering up!  Barack Obama was running for reelection on a theme of "I killed Osama bin Laden and have Al Queda on the run!" and suddenly here is an Al Queda affiliated group of terrorists attacking our consulate and killing our Ambassador!!!  Holy political embarrassment, Batman!!!  That's going to make it look like we're full of shit with our claim that Al Queda's on the run...what should we do?  Oh, I know...we'll blame it on some obscure Youtube video and a mob protest that got out of hand and hope our buddies in the Main Stream media cover our asses until after the election!  They actually had the balls to throw the idiot who made that cheesy little video in prison while they blamed HIM for what happened in Benghazi when they knew all along that there was no protest that escalated into an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, a simple google search proves you wrong.
> 
> Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded - CBS News
> 
> Sorry, there were troops in Tripoli the night of the attack, and more the next day.
> 
> And frankly, your Mormon Scumbucket tries to use Ambassador Steven's coffin as a soapbox, and he looked pretty creepy when he did it.  (Then again, a non-creepy Mormon is a sight to behold.)
Click to expand...


Jesus, Joe...go get a big cup of coffee before you post another thing!  In case you haven't gotten the memo...Tripoli is NOT Benghazi!  It's like saying you've sent troops to Chicago when you sent them to Boston!  Duh?


----------



## Iceweasel

Oldstyle said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you, Joe...the ATF is part of the Justice Department which is run by the Attorney General.  Duh?  Are you going to have one of those days when EVERYTHING you post is stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well be arguing with a houseplant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an insult to houseplants, Meat!  They don't post the same kind of laughably stupid stuff that Joe does!
Click to expand...

He's just a troll. No one that can type is that stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> If you are an average Middle Class American the ACA is NOT going to make your life "better"!  It's going to raise your healthcare costs to pay for the coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and those getting large subsidies on their premiums...while lowering the quality of care you get.  That's the REALITY of the ACA.  You still buy into the bullshit that Obama, Reid and Pelosi gave us to get this joke of a bill passed in the first place even though it's becoming increasingly apparent that they lied about much of what they were telling us which makes you either extremely naive or extremely stupid!



I'm an average middle class american and what I've noticed is that since ACA was passed, we stopped having those annual HR meetings about how our Medical Plan changed this year to cost a little more and suck a lot more.  

But Oh, my God, we have to take care of people with pre-existing conditions. How horrible. How dare they have pre-existing conditions, those welfare collecitng freeloaders. 

Hey, guy, this is why you lost.  When your attitude towards life is "I got mine, fuck you!", people don't really like you that much.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious?  Not only were troops not on the ground at Benghazi within hours of the attack...THEY WEREN'T THERE A WEEK LATER!  THE FBI COULDN'T INVESTIGATE THE CONSULATE SITE BECAUSE IT WAS JUDGED TO BE TOO UNSAFE!  The fact is, Barry never sent the troops!  Then you compare what Obama did in Libya with what Bush did in Afghanistan?  Again...are you fucking serious?  Bush went into Afghanistan and took out the entire Taliban apparatus in less time then it's taken Barry to arrest the first person involved in the Benghazi attacks!
> 
> As for what they were covering up?  Their own incompetence and total lack of a meaningful response to what happened in Benghazi...that's what they were covering up!  Barack Obama was running for reelection on a theme of "I killed Osama bin Laden and have Al Queda on the run!" and suddenly here is an Al Queda affiliated group of terrorists attacking our consulate and killing our Ambassador!!!  Holy political embarrassment, Batman!!!  That's going to make it look like we're full of shit with our claim that Al Queda's on the run...what should we do?  Oh, I know...we'll blame it on some obscure Youtube video and a mob protest that got out of hand and hope our buddies in the Main Stream media cover our asses until after the election!  They actually had the balls to throw the idiot who made that cheesy little video in prison while they blamed HIM for what happened in Benghazi when they knew all along that there was no protest that escalated into an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, a simple google search proves you wrong.
> 
> Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded - CBS News
> 
> Sorry, there were troops in Tripoli the night of the attack, and more the next day.
> 
> And frankly, your Mormon Scumbucket tries to use Ambassador Steven's coffin as a soapbox, and he looked pretty creepy when he did it.  (Then again, a non-creepy Mormon is a sight to behold.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus, Joe...go get a big cup of coffee before you post another thing!  In case you haven't gotten the memo...Tripoli is NOT Benghazi!  It's like saying you've sent troops to Chicago when you sent them to Boston!  Duh?
Click to expand...


There were troops in Benghazi... sorry, I mistyped, but you would have known what I meant if you clicked on the link. 

It's really kind of hard to rationalize with somoene as full of hate as you are, but if you want to pretend that we didn't have troops there pretty quickly, I guess you really need to believe that. 

Reality. It's a dangerous world, the two mercenaries failed to protect the ambassador,a nd their whining families are carping about it on Faux News.  

Hey, maybe that's the real scandal here.  Why are we hiring incompetent mercenaries.  Maybe we do need an investigation.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> If you are an average Middle Class American the ACA is NOT going to make your life "better"!  It's going to raise your healthcare costs to pay for the coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and those getting large subsidies on their premiums...while lowering the quality of care you get.  That's the REALITY of the ACA.  You still buy into the bullshit that Obama, Reid and Pelosi gave us to get this joke of a bill passed in the first place even though it's becoming increasingly apparent that they lied about much of what they were telling us which makes you either extremely naive or extremely stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an average middle class american and what I've noticed is that since ACA was passed, we stopped having those annual HR meetings about how our Medical Plan changed this year to cost a little more and suck a lot more.
> 
> But Oh, my God, we have to take care of people with pre-existing conditions. How horrible. How dare they have pre-existing conditions, those welfare collecitng freeloaders.
> 
> Hey, guy, this is why you lost.  When your attitude towards life is "I got mine, fuck you!", people don't really like you that much.
Click to expand...


The reason Romney lost was that the American people were never told the truth about ObamaCare so they could make an informed decision.  They were fed lies.  As for pre-existing conditions?  I know it sounds WONDERFUL that insurance companies are now not going to be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions but the fact is...that provision of the ACA is what dooms it to failure.  Why would anyone sign up for insurance when they are allowed to sign up for it after they get sick with no penalty?  The stupidity of how they've structured this thing is laughable.  Now they are scratching their heads because the can't figure out why young and healthy people aren't signing up?  You progressives continue to amuse...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> If you are an average Middle Class American the ACA is NOT going to make your life "better"!  It's going to raise your healthcare costs to pay for the coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and those getting large subsidies on their premiums...while lowering the quality of care you get.  That's the REALITY of the ACA.  You still buy into the bullshit that Obama, Reid and Pelosi gave us to get this joke of a bill passed in the first place even though it's becoming increasingly apparent that they lied about much of what they were telling us which makes you either extremely naive or extremely stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an average middle class american and what I've noticed is that since ACA was passed, we stopped having those annual HR meetings about how our Medical Plan changed this year to cost a little more and suck a lot more.
> 
> But Oh, my God, we have to take care of people with pre-existing conditions. How horrible. How dare they have pre-existing conditions, those welfare collecitng freeloaders.
> 
> Hey, guy, this is why you lost.  When your attitude towards life is "I got mine, fuck you!", people don't really like you that much.
Click to expand...


You stopped having HR meeting or they stopped being about your imaginary medical plan?


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, a simple google search proves you wrong.
> 
> Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded - CBS News
> 
> Sorry, there were troops in Tripoli the night of the attack, and more the next day.
> 
> And frankly, your Mormon Scumbucket tries to use Ambassador Steven's coffin as a soapbox, and he looked pretty creepy when he did it.  (Then again, a non-creepy Mormon is a sight to behold.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, Joe...go get a big cup of coffee before you post another thing!  In case you haven't gotten the memo...Tripoli is NOT Benghazi!  It's like saying you've sent troops to Chicago when you sent them to Boston!  Duh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were troops in Benghazi... sorry, I mistyped, but you would have known what I meant if you clicked on the link.
> 
> It's really kind of hard to rationalize with somoene as full of hate as you are, but if you want to pretend that we didn't have troops there pretty quickly, I guess you really need to believe that.
> 
> Reality. It's a dangerous world, the two mercenaries failed to protect the ambassador,a nd their whining families are carping about it on Faux News.
> 
> Hey, maybe that's the real scandal here.  Why are we hiring incompetent mercenaries.  Maybe we do need an investigation.
Click to expand...


You really are a douche!  Now you're accusing the two men who went to the consulate at great personal risk to attempt to rescue Ambassador Stevens of being "incompetent"?  Those CIA operators were incredibly dedicated and selfless.  They gave their lives up defending America.  For you to sit here now and blame them for not being able to fix the cluster fuck that happened in Benghazi because of Hilary Clinton's incompetence and a total lack of a response from the Obama White House is about as despicable as it gets.

But that's you...isn't it, Joe?  Blame anyone BUT the progressives who were running things!  It's always got to be someone else who is at fault!


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [quo
> 
> The reason Romney lost was that the American people were never told the truth about ObamaCare so they could make an informed decision.  They were fed lies.  As for pre-existing conditions?  I know it sounds WONDERFUL that insurance companies are now not going to be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions but the fact is...that provision of the ACA is what dooms it to failure.  Why would anyone sign up for insurance when they are allowed to sign up for it after they get sick with no penalty?  The stupidity of how they've structured this thing is laughable.  Now they are scratching their heads because the can't figure out why young and healthy people aren't signing up?  You progressives continue to amuse...



Again, eventually, the individual mandate kicks in and everyone has to sign or face a penalty. 

Which is exactly how it worked in Massachusetts. Oh, wait, didn't Romney come up with that. 

BUt here's the real problem you don't get Cleetus.  

You really, really think that by repeating your same arguments, someone is going to slap their head and say, "Damn, what was I thinking, I should have voted for the Mormon!"  

Nope. No one has said that. Not one person.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, a simple google search proves you wrong.
> 
> Benghazi timeline: How the attack unfolded - CBS News
> 
> Sorry, there were troops in Tripoli the night of the attack, and more the next day.
> 
> And frankly, your Mormon Scumbucket tries to use Ambassador Steven's coffin as a soapbox, and he looked pretty creepy when he did it.  (Then again, a non-creepy Mormon is a sight to behold.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, Joe...go get a big cup of coffee before you post another thing!  In case you haven't gotten the memo...Tripoli is NOT Benghazi!  It's like saying you've sent troops to Chicago when you sent them to Boston!  Duh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were troops in Benghazi... sorry, I mistyped, but you would have known what I meant if you clicked on the link.
> 
> It's really kind of hard to rationalize with somoene as full of hate as you are, but if you want to pretend that we didn't have troops there pretty quickly, I guess you really need to believe that.
> 
> Reality. It's a dangerous world, the two mercenaries failed to protect the ambassador,a nd their whining families are carping about it on Faux News.
> 
> Hey, maybe that's the real scandal here.  Why are we hiring incompetent mercenaries.  Maybe we do need an investigation.
Click to expand...


Josef, please go fuck yourself you lowlife fuck


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> You really are a douche!  Now you're accusing the two men who went to the consulate at great personal risk to attempt to rescue Ambassador Stevens of being "incompetent"?  Those CIA operators were incredibly dedicated and selfless.  They gave their lives up defending America.  For you to sit here now and blame them for not being able to fix the cluster fuck that happened in Benghazi because of Hilary Clinton's incompetence and a total lack of a response from the Obama White House is about as despicable as it gets.
> 
> But that's you...isn't it, Joe?  Blame anyone BUT the progressives who were running things!  It's always got to be someone else who is at fault!



Hey, we shouldn't be hiring mercenaries to do a soldier's job.  I've talked to a lot of guys who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and have nothing but contempt for the Halliburton and Blackwater "consultants" or whatever the fuck they call themselves.  

Their job was to protect the Ambassador. They failed. Miserably.  

BUt shit, let's give them a bigger contract.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [qu
> 
> You stopped having HR meeting or they stopped being about your imaginary medical plan?



It was written in clear English, Cleetus. Did I n eed to use smaller words for you?


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You really are a douche!  Now you're accusing the two men who went to the consulate at great personal risk to attempt to rescue Ambassador Stevens of being "incompetent"?  Those CIA operators were incredibly dedicated and selfless.  They gave their lives up defending America.  For you to sit here now and blame them for not being able to fix the cluster fuck that happened in Benghazi because of Hilary Clinton's incompetence and a total lack of a response from the Obama White House is about as despicable as it gets.
> 
> But that's you...isn't it, Joe?  Blame anyone BUT the progressives who were running things!  It's always got to be someone else who is at fault!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, we shouldn't be hiring mercenaries to do a soldier's job.  I've talked to a lot of guys who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and have nothing but contempt for the Halliburton and Blackwater "consultants" or whatever the fuck they call themselves.
> 
> Their job was to protect the Ambassador. They failed. Miserably.
> 
> BUt shit, let's give them a bigger contract.
Click to expand...


They worked for the CIA as part of the Global Response Staff, not Halliburton or Blackwater, you moron!  Is there anything about ANYTHING that you aren't ignorant about, Joe?


----------



## Oldstyle

I swear to God...if stupid was money...JoeB would be the richest guy I know!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan brought America out of the morass of Stagflation that Jimmy Carter didn't have a clue how to fix and set us on a path where we experienced the longest sustained growth in our economy in US history.  *THAT* is why Ronald Reagan is remembered fondly by conservatives and why you liberals feel the need to attack him relentlessly.  He DID something that Barry, Harry and Nancy couldn't do...namely fix the economy and bring prosperity to America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lived through the 1970's... guy, it wasn't that bad.  It also had something called "A Middle Class", which was kind of cool, too bad we don't have one of those anymore.
> 
> Reagan is remembered fondly because his profound fuckups all came home to roost on someone else's watch. Unlike other Republicans who got caught red handing fucking things up.
Click to expand...




yes it indeed wasnt bad at all.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The beauty of Reagan was the way he handled himself in the Iran-Contra investigation. In that hearing Reagan used the old tried and true method of saying "I forget" 124 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was very cringe-worthy yes.
Click to expand...


yep,yep and yep.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> They worked for the CIA as part of the Global Response Staff, not Halliburton or Blackwater, you moron!  Is there anything about ANYTHING that you aren't ignorant about, Joe?



They weren't government employees.  

Which corporate welfare teet they were sucking off of is besides the point.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> They worked for the CIA as part of the Global Response Staff, not Halliburton or Blackwater, you moron!  Is there anything about ANYTHING that you aren't ignorant about, Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't government employees.
> 
> Which corporate welfare teet they were sucking off of is besides the point.
Click to expand...


They worked for the Central Intelligence Agency which the last time I checked was part of the Government!   And you're STILL a douche for blaming THEM for Ambassador Steven's death.  Blame for that falls squarely on the higher ups who failed to adequately protect our diplomatic personnel despite repeated warnings that the situation in Libya was becoming extremely dangerous.  Glenn Doherty was wrapping up his time with the CIA.  Libya was one last job before he was planning to leave government service to take a job with a private firm.  Even so...he STILL risked his life to try and rescue Ambassador Stevens!  That's the man that you've attempted to character assassinate and to be quite blunt...you aren't worth a piece of gum stuck to the sole of Glen Doherty's boot!  He's a hero and you're an internet BLOWHARD!


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> They worked for the CIA as part of the Global Response Staff, not Halliburton or Blackwater, you moron!  Is there anything about ANYTHING that you aren't ignorant about, Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't government employees.
> 
> Which corporate welfare teet they were sucking off of is besides the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They worked for the Central Intelligence Agency which the last time I checked was part of the Government!   And you're STILL a douche for blaming THEM for Ambassador Steven's death.  Blame for that falls squarely on the higher ups who failed to adequately protect our diplomatic personnel despite repeated warnings that the situation in Libya was becoming extremely dangerous.  Glenn Doherty was wrapping up his time with the CIA.  Libya was one last job before he was planning to leave government service to take a job with a private firm.  Even so...he STILL risked his life to try and rescue Ambassador Stevens!  That's the man that you've attempted to character assassinate and to be quite blunt...you aren't worth a piece of gum stuck to the sole of Glen Doherty's boot!  He's a hero and you're an internet BLOWHARD!
Click to expand...


The CIA was running a black site out of that consulate they didn't bother telling State about. 

Besides the video, that's part of what the mob was upset about. 

These guys were CONTRACTORS, though. 

CIA?s Global Response Staff emerging from shadows after incidents in Libya and Pakistan - The Washington Post



> Of the 14 CIA employees killed since 2009, five worked for the GRS,* all as contractors*. They include two killed at Benghazi, as well as three others who were within the blast radius on Dec. 31, 2009, when a Jordanian double agent detonated a suicide bomb at a CIA compound in Khost, Afghanistan.
> 
> GRS contractors have also been involved in shootouts in which only foreign nationals were killed, including one that triggered a diplomatic crisis. While working for the CIA, Raymond Davis was jailed for weeks in Pakistan last year after killing two men in what he said was an armed robbery attempt in Lahore.




Sorry, guy, can't get worked up about mercenaries..  Especially ones that cause as much trouble as these guys do.


----------



## editec

Odd that in a thread devoted to the history of Reagan, the right keeps wanting so to DEFLECT the subject.


Or perhaps not so odd at all, eh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> If you are an average Middle Class American the ACA is NOT going to make your life "better"!  It's going to raise your healthcare costs to pay for the coverage of people with pre-existing conditions and those getting large subsidies on their premiums...while lowering the quality of care you get.  That's the REALITY of the ACA.  You still buy into the bullshit that Obama, Reid and Pelosi gave us to get this joke of a bill passed in the first place even though it's becoming increasingly apparent that they lied about much of what they were telling us which makes you either extremely naive or extremely stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an average middle class american and what I've noticed is that since ACA was passed, we stopped having those annual HR meetings about how our Medical Plan changed this year to cost a little more and suck a lot more.
> 
> But Oh, my God, we have to take care of people with pre-existing conditions. How horrible. How dare they have pre-existing conditions, those welfare collecitng freeloaders.
> 
> Hey, guy, this is why you lost.  When your attitude towards life is "I got mine, fuck you!", people don't really like you that much.
Click to expand...


Whenever Josef uses the word "guy" he is thinking "Komrade"


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> Whenever Josef uses the word "guy" he is thinking "Komrade"



Actually, what I'm thinking is, 'Man, I am amazed that you dumb ass Bubba Rednecks keep voting to let rich people fuck you in the ass as long as you got your gun and your bible".


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't government employees.
> 
> Which corporate welfare teet they were sucking off of is besides the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They worked for the Central Intelligence Agency which the last time I checked was part of the Government!   And you're STILL a douche for blaming THEM for Ambassador Steven's death.  Blame for that falls squarely on the higher ups who failed to adequately protect our diplomatic personnel despite repeated warnings that the situation in Libya was becoming extremely dangerous.  Glenn Doherty was wrapping up his time with the CIA.  Libya was one last job before he was planning to leave government service to take a job with a private firm.  Even so...he STILL risked his life to try and rescue Ambassador Stevens!  That's the man that you've attempted to character assassinate and to be quite blunt...you aren't worth a piece of gum stuck to the sole of Glen Doherty's boot!  He's a hero and you're an internet BLOWHARD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIA was running a black site out of that consulate they didn't bother telling State about.
> 
> Besides the video, that's part of what the mob was upset about.
> 
> These guys were CONTRACTORS, though.
> 
> CIA?s Global Response Staff emerging from shadows after incidents in Libya and Pakistan - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 14 CIA employees killed since 2009, five worked for the GRS,* all as contractors*. They include two killed at Benghazi, as well as three others who were within the blast radius on Dec. 31, 2009, when a Jordanian double agent detonated a suicide bomb at a CIA compound in Khost, Afghanistan.
> 
> GRS contractors have also been involved in shootouts in which only foreign nationals were killed, including one that triggered a diplomatic crisis. While working for the CIA, Raymond Davis was jailed for weeks in Pakistan last year after killing two men in what he said was an armed robbery attempt in Lahore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, guy, can't get worked up about mercenaries..  Especially ones that cause as much trouble as these guys do.
Click to expand...


So let me see if I've got this straight?  Because one of the two CIA operators was hired on a temporary basis...they are both "mercenaries" and we shouldn't give a shit about their deaths?  Is that the "JoeB" take on the world today?  And because you need someone to blame OTHER than Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton for the debacle that Benghazi became...you've decided to blame some of the only people who actually DID something to try and save Christopher Stevens' life...giving their own lives in the process?  Now in your warped little mind, Doherty and Woods were "causing trouble" when they went to the burning Consulate and saved those people?  They were "causing trouble" when they were on that roof top of the Annex trying desperately to hold off repeated assaults by heavily armed terrorists?

Like I said before, Joe...if stupid was money...you'd be the richest guy I know!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Whenever Josef uses the word "guy" he is thinking "Komrade"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I'm thinking is, 'Man, I am amazed that you dumb ass Bubba Rednecks keep voting to let rich people fuck you in the ass as long as you got your gun and your bible".
Click to expand...


Gee, Joe...I'm from Massachusetts, have a degree in History and I'm an agnostic.  I guess that makes me a "dumb ass Bubba Redneck"?

I'm amazed you can type with your head stuck so far up your ass!


----------



## Camp

editec said:


> Odd that in a thread devoted to the history of Reagan, the right keeps wanting so to DEFLECT the subject.
> 
> 
> Or perhaps not so odd at all, eh?



And of all deflections, Benghazi. Like the attack on a facility in Benghazi comes close to comparing to the attacks on the Embassy and annex in Beirut while Reagan was President.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Whenever Josef uses the word "guy" he is thinking "Komrade"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I'm thinking is, 'Man, I am amazed that you dumb ass Bubba Rednecks keep voting to let rich people fuck you in the ass as long as you got your gun and your bible".
Click to expand...


^ Genuine Card Carrying Communist with no understanding of the American Economy

Guy is English for Komrade.


----------



## PoliticalChic

It was on this day, March 30th, 1981  that John Hinckley,Jr. attempted to kill President Ronald Reagan.


 Wielding a .22 caliber "Saturday-night special," John Warnock Hinckley shot President Reagan in the chest outside the Washington Hilton Hotel. The 25-year-old drifter with a history of psychological problems also shot the president's press secretary, James Brady, in the incident. 


Reagan was the only US President to survive being shot while in office (just 69 days into his presidency).


 Afterwards, he wrote in his diary:
 &#8220;Whatever happens now, I owe my life to God and will try to serve him in every way I can.&#8221;
https://www.facebook.com/RonaldReagan/posts/493615714026088?stream_ref=5


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Whenever Josef uses the word "guy" he is thinking "Komrade"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I'm thinking is, 'Man, I am amazed that you dumb ass Bubba Rednecks keep voting to let rich people fuck you in the ass as long as you got your gun and your bible".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, Joe...I'm from Massachusetts, have a degree in History and I'm an agnostic.  I guess that makes me a "dumb ass Bubba Redneck"?
> 
> I'm amazed you can type with your head stuck so far up your ass!
Click to expand...


And yet you throw in with the Bubbas at every opportunity...


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> So let me see if I've got this straight?  Because one of the two CIA operators was hired on a temporary basis...they are both "mercenaries" and we shouldn't give a shit about their deaths?  Is that the "JoeB" take on the world today?  And because you need someone to blame OTHER than Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton for the debacle that Benghazi became...you've decided to blame some of the only people who actually DID something to try and save Christopher Stevens' life...giving their own lives in the process?  Now in your warped little mind, Doherty and Woods were "causing trouble" when they went to the burning Consulate and saved those people?  They were "causing trouble" when they were on that roof top of the Annex trying desperately to hold off repeated assaults by heavily armed terrorists?
> 
> Like I said before, Joe...if stupid was money...you'd be the richest guy I know!



And I like I said before, your hatred for Obama has turned into a brain disease.  

Because unlike Frank, I'll admit, you do sound smart, but frankly, (no pun intended) your hate kind of blinds you. 

You fools on the right did not give a shit about the deaths of 4500 servicemen (and hundreds of Contractors) killed in Iraq because Bush and Cheney LIED about WMD's. (And, no, I'm not going to relitigate the whole "Intelligence Reports" shit.  They said there were WMD's and there weren't.) 

But the deaths of these two State Department officials and two mercenaries is the worst fucking thing ever, oh, my God, it's all Obama's fault and not the CIA for operating a black site there or the asshole who made a video that pissed off thousands of Musliims or even the people who actually attacked. 

Nope. It's Obama's fault.  

And frankly, your approach to every issue seems to be this. Obama did this because he's EEEEEEEEEEvil.  

And Faux News will drag the families of the Mercenaries on TV everynight to whine about it.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what I'm thinking is, 'Man, I am amazed that you dumb ass Bubba Rednecks keep voting to let rich people fuck you in the ass as long as you got your gun and your bible".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, Joe...I'm from Massachusetts, have a degree in History and I'm an agnostic.  I guess that makes me a "dumb ass Bubba Redneck"?
> 
> I'm amazed you can type with your head stuck so far up your ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you throw in with the Bubbas at every opportunity...
Click to expand...


I'm a fiscal conservative who deals in reality...somehow you twist THAT into throwing in with the "Bubbas"? 

Your problem, Joe is your whole world is built upon stereotypes that have nothing to do with reality.  You actually believe that people from the South are stupid...because they are from the South!  Here's a little dose of that reality I mentioned...it's not 1964 and the South is not the South of 1964 and the only "Bubba" that I know is Bill Clinton.  So with that in mind...why don't you cease the digs at others until you start making some posts that aren't borderline "short bus" material!


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So let me see if I've got this straight?  Because one of the two CIA operators was hired on a temporary basis...they are both "mercenaries" and we shouldn't give a shit about their deaths?  Is that the "JoeB" take on the world today?  And because you need someone to blame OTHER than Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton for the debacle that Benghazi became...you've decided to blame some of the only people who actually DID something to try and save Christopher Stevens' life...giving their own lives in the process?  Now in your warped little mind, Doherty and Woods were "causing trouble" when they went to the burning Consulate and saved those people?  They were "causing trouble" when they were on that roof top of the Annex trying desperately to hold off repeated assaults by heavily armed terrorists?
> 
> Like I said before, Joe...if stupid was money...you'd be the richest guy I know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I like I said before, your hatred for Obama has turned into a brain disease.
> 
> Because unlike Frank, I'll admit, you do sound smart, but frankly, (no pun intended) your hate kind of blinds you.
> 
> You fools on the right did not give a shit about the deaths of 4500 servicemen (and hundreds of Contractors) killed in Iraq because Bush and Cheney LIED about WMD's. (And, no, I'm not going to relitigate the whole "Intelligence Reports" shit.  They said there were WMD's and there weren't.)
> 
> But the deaths of these two State Department officials and two mercenaries is the worst fucking thing ever, oh, my God, it's all Obama's fault and not the CIA for operating a black site there or the asshole who made a video that pissed off thousands of Musliims or even the people who actually attacked.
> 
> Nope. It's Obama's fault.
> 
> And frankly, your approach to every issue seems to be this. Obama did this because he's EEEEEEEEEEvil.
> 
> And Faux News will drag the families of the Mercenaries on TV everynight to whine about it.
Click to expand...


Barack Obama isn't "EEEEEEEvil"...he's simply a man who's totally in over his head with a job he never should have had in the first place.  Barry fucked up Benghazi because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues who ALSO don't have a clue what they are doing!

It's amateur hour in the White House and the rest of the world knows it even if the far left of American politics won't admit it.


----------



## MaryL

I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.


----------



## Oldstyle

MaryL said:


> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.



Bad chickpeas killed 210 American servicemen?  Oh, you're going to a great compliment to Joe...


----------



## Oldstyle

MaryL said:


> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.



Before the PATCO strike there were 39 illegal strikes by public sector unions.  After Reagan put the hammer down on the air traffic controllers there were zero.  Reagan simply enforced the laws that were on the books and stopped public sector unions from holding the nation hostage every time they wanted more money and benefits.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

MaryL said:


> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.



Libs hate that Reagan beat the USSR

Whatcah gonna do?


----------



## MaryL

Oldstyle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad chickpeas killed 210 American servicemen?  Oh, you're going to a great compliment to Joe...
Click to expand...


Hmm. OK. I lived thought the PATCO breakup, that was the forefront of the anti union  sentiment the republicans represented.  Then, there was the amnesty in 86 of three million illegal aliens.  All small potatoes, we have like  12 million illegal aliens , and Unions are  NOW on the run. Who benefits from this ? Sorry, I am not a commie or anything. Just a realist.  Hmm. In Beirut in 83 Muslim suicide bombers killed American military men on a peace mission.  Regan, wise or cowardly,  pulled us out and ran away to fight another day.  My sense waswe should have never gone in, or else bombed the Shiite out of them. That is how I felt at the time, that isnt hindsight. But, here we are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

MaryL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad chickpeas killed 210 American servicemen?  Oh, you're going to a great compliment to Joe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. OK. I lived thought the PATCO breakup, that was the forefront of the anti union  sentiment the republicans represented.  Then, there was the amnesty in 86&#8217; of three million illegal aliens.  All small potatoes, we have like  12 million illegal aliens , and Unions are  NOW on the run. Who benefits from this ? Sorry, I am not a commie or anything. Just a realist.  Hmm. In Beirut in 83&#8217; Muslim suicide bombers killed American military men on a peace mission.  Regan, wise or cowardly,  pulled us out and ran away to fight another day.  My sense was&#8230;we should have never gone in, or else bombed the Shiite out of them. That is how I felt at the time, that isn&#8217;t hindsight. But, here we are.
Click to expand...


^ Josephine

cough cough 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





cough cough


----------



## MaryL

Hmm. A sock? Cute. Deflect the truth. Can I  help you with that supposed cough?I am getting one of those too. Obama care.  I lived thought the Regan Admin, and it wasn't  what it was cracked up to be. No. Really. Bring down this wall! That was a rare historical  case of synergy. Otherwise, Regan was a big FAIL. Really. Been there done it. He never had a clue. Neither do most of you little kids.


----------



## Oldstyle

MaryL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad chickpeas killed 210 American servicemen?  Oh, you're going to a great compliment to Joe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. OK. I lived thought the PATCO breakup, that was the forefront of the anti union  sentiment the republicans represented.  Then, there was the amnesty in 86 of three million illegal aliens.  All small potatoes, we have like  12 million illegal aliens , and Unions are  NOW on the run. Who benefits from this ? Sorry, I am not a commie or anything. Just a realist.  Hmm. In Beirut in 83 Muslim suicide bombers killed American military men on a peace mission.  Regan, wise or cowardly,  pulled us out and ran away to fight another day.  My sense waswe should have never gone in, or else bombed the Shiite out of them. That is how I felt at the time, that isnt hindsight. But, here we are.
Click to expand...


Since even a liberal icon like FDR believed that public sector employees should not be able to strike why is it that Republicans always get blamed for being "anti union" when they simply want unions to play fair?

As for Reagan's amnesty back in '86?  That was part of a deal he worked out with Tip O'Neil where he agreed to amnesty and liberals in Congress agreed to tighten border security.  Reagan kept his part of the bargain...the liberals did not keep theirs...just as they didn't keep their part of the bargain when Reagan struck a deal to raise taxes in return for spending cuts.  Then liberals can't understand why conservatives don't trust them as far as they can throw them on "deals".


----------



## Oldstyle

MaryL said:


> Hmm. A sock? Cute. Deflect the truth. Can I  help you with that supposed cough?I am getting one of those too. Obama care.  I lived thought the Regan Admin, and it wasn't  what it was cracked up to be. No. Really. Bring down this wall! That was a rare historical  case of synergy. Otherwise, Regan was a big FAIL. Really. Been there done it. He never had a clue. Neither do most of you little kids.



Are you kidding, Mary?  Compared to the Carter years...the Reagan two terms was like the country got sprung from prison.  Have you forgotten how bad is was by the end of Carter's four years in office?  The country was suffering from rampant stagflation.  Say what you will about Reagan...he turned that around and got the economy moving in a positive direction again.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Barack Obama isn't "EEEEEEEvil"...he's simply a man who's totally in over his head with a job he never should have had in the first place.  Barry fucked up Benghazi because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues who ALSO don't have a clue what they are doing!
> 
> It's amateur hour in the White House and the rest of the world knows it even if the far left of American politics won't admit it.



Yeah, guy, right.  I always notice that when someone calls you on your obsession, you try to sound "reasonable". 

So let's compare shall we Benghazi to Iraq. 

In Iraq, Bush ignored the UN, most of our allies and his own generals.  He went on an invasion of Iraq  over weapons that didn't exist and ties to Al Qaeda that weren't there.  Soldiers were sent in with inadequate armor, and military contractors made a fortune overcharging the Pentagon for basic services. 

As a result, 4500 soldiers and 550 contractos died, really pretty much over nothing. The new Government in Baghdad is an ally of Iran and Al Qaeda has free reign in the Sunni Triangle. Oh, yeah, and we can't even agree how many Iraqis died needlessly.  

Now. Benghazi. Two diplomats and two Mercenaries died in a four hour period. 

"OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS THE FUCKING ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!  He doesn't know what he's doing, he wants to destroy America the whole world is laughing at us!!!!"

NO, guy, you do not have a problem.  Really.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before the PATCO strike there were 39 illegal strikes by public sector unions.  After Reagan put the hammer down on the air traffic controllers there were zero.  Reagan simply enforced the laws that were on the books and stopped public sector unions from holding the nation hostage every time they wanted more money and benefits.
Click to expand...


And the real problem is, you think this is a good thing. 

PATCO was striking over hte fact most of those guys were overworked and their equipment was outdated, as well as money issues.  

But, man, fuck air safety. Reagan was going to teaching those working stiffs who was in charge.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad chickpeas killed 210 American servicemen?  Oh, you're going to a great compliment to Joe...
Click to expand...


That's some pretty nice deflection there.  

Okay, let's look at that.  ON Reagan's watch, 241 servicemen were killed in a suicide bombing. 

Reagan immediately tried to distract everyone's attention by invading Grenada, because nothing re-establishes your 'manhood' like invading a small, helpless country. 

Oh, yeah, about 25 guys died doing that, most of them killed in accidents and friendly fire incidents.  

But of course, Benghazi is much, much worse, because the Black Guy did it.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> I'm a fiscal conservative who deals in reality...somehow you twist THAT into throwing in with the "Bubbas"?
> 
> Your problem, Joe is your whole world is built upon stereotypes that have nothing to do with reality.  You actually believe that people from the South are stupid...because they are from the South!  Here's a little dose of that reality I mentioned...it's not 1964 and the South is not the South of 1964 and the only "Bubba" that I know is Bill Clinton.  So with that in mind...why don't you cease the digs at others until you start making some posts that aren't borderline "short bus" material!



Okay, guy, so if you are Fiscal Conservative, exactly where were you when George W. Stupid was out there giving tax cuts to rich people in the middle of a fucking WAR! 

How was that "Fiscally conservative", exactly?  

But somehow, you aren't screaming about that as loudly as you are screaming about Obama providing health care to poor people. 

And, yes, the South are still the same mean-spirited assholes they were in 1964.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Barack Obama isn't "EEEEEEEvil"...he's simply a man who's totally in over his head with a job he never should have had in the first place.  Barry fucked up Benghazi because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues who ALSO don't have a clue what they are doing!
> 
> It's amateur hour in the White House and the rest of the world knows it even if the far left of American politics won't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, right.  I always notice that when someone calls you on your obsession, you try to sound "reasonable".
> 
> So let's compare shall we Benghazi to Iraq.
> 
> In Iraq, Bush ignored the UN, most of our allies and his own generals.  He went on an invasion of Iraq  over weapons that didn't exist and ties to Al Qaeda that weren't there.  Soldiers were sent in with inadequate armor, and military contractors made a fortune overcharging the Pentagon for basic services.
> 
> As a result, 4500 soldiers and 550 contractos died, really pretty much over nothing. The new Government in Baghdad is an ally of Iran and Al Qaeda has free reign in the Sunni Triangle. Oh, yeah, and we can't even agree how many Iraqis died needlessly.
> 
> Now. Benghazi. Two diplomats and two Mercenaries died in a four hour period.
> 
> "OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS THE FUCKING ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!  He doesn't know what he's doing, he wants to destroy America the whole world is laughing at us!!!!"
> 
> NO, guy, you do not have a problem.  Really.
Click to expand...

As someone who holds Stalin as an icon, you may not realize that Saddam was a very, very bad guy and getting rid of him and his sons was a tremendous service to mankind. What did Benghazi get us?


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> []As someone who holds Stalin as an icon, you may not realize that Saddam was a very, very bad guy and getting rid of him and his sons was a tremendous service to mankind. What did Benghazi get us?



Where did I say Stalin was an "Icon". 

Oh, that's right. I actually recognize the USSR's key role in saving the world from Fascism.  NOt to worry, the rate Corporate entities are going, Fascism is coming back in style. 

But anyway, yeah, Saddam was  bad guy. Saddam was a bad guy when he was invading Iran, and Reagan was arming him and helping him get bogus agricultural loans from US Banks to buy weapons.  Saddam was  bad guy when he was gassing the Kurds and Reagan went to the UN and denied it was happening. 

Of course, in 2003, he was a bad guy, still, but his military was crippled, and his authority really didn't extend far beyond Baghdad.   

Certainly not worth the lives of 4500 servicemen while Bin Laden was living in Pakistan still plotting against us.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> []As someone who holds Stalin as an icon, you may not realize that Saddam was a very, very bad guy and getting rid of him and his sons was a tremendous service to mankind. What did Benghazi get us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say Stalin was an "Icon".
> 
> Oh, that's right. I actually recognize the USSR's key role in saving the world from Fascism.  NOt to worry, the rate Corporate entities are going, Fascism is coming back in style.
> 
> But anyway, yeah, Saddam was  bad guy. Saddam was a bad guy when he was invading Iran, and Reagan was arming him and helping him get bogus agricultural loans from US Banks to buy weapons.  Saddam was  bad guy when he was gassing the Kurds and Reagan went to the UN and denied it was happening.
> 
> Of course, in 2003, he was a bad guy, still, but his military was crippled, and his authority really didn't extend far beyond Baghdad.
> 
> Certainly not worth the lives of 4500 servicemen while Bin Laden was living in Pakistan still plotting against us.
Click to expand...

Sorry about Stalin, Saddam and bin Laden. You'll get over it. Now tell me what Benghazi got us.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> []As someone who holds Stalin as an icon, you may not realize that Saddam was a very, very bad guy and getting rid of him and his sons was a tremendous service to mankind. What did Benghazi get us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say Stalin was an "Icon".
> 
> Oh, that's right. I actually recognize the USSR's key role in saving the world from Fascism.  NOt to worry, the rate Corporate entities are going, Fascism is coming back in style.
> 
> But anyway, yeah, Saddam was  bad guy. Saddam was a bad guy when he was invading Iran, and Reagan was arming him and helping him get bogus agricultural loans from US Banks to buy weapons.  Saddam was  bad guy when he was gassing the Kurds and Reagan went to the UN and denied it was happening.
> 
> Of course, in 2003, he was a bad guy, still, but his military was crippled, and his authority really didn't extend far beyond Baghdad.
> 
> Certainly not worth the lives of 4500 servicemen while Bin Laden was living in Pakistan still plotting against us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry about Stalin, Saddam and bin Laden. You'll get over it. Now tell me what Benghazi got us.
Click to expand...


i'm sorry about Bin Laden and Saddam, too. 

Reagan propped both of them up, and they both turned around and bit us in the ass.  

I also think getting involved in Libya's Civil War was a mistake.  The EU took advantage and we went along with it and it was kind of stupid. 

But 4 dead in Benghazi is nothing compared to 5000 dead in Iraq or 241 dead in Beruit. 

But the BLACK GUY did it!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

MaryL said:


> Hmm. A sock? Cute. Deflect the truth. Can I  help you with that supposed cough?I am getting one of those too. Obama care.  I lived thought the Regan Admin, and it wasn't  what it was cracked up to be. No. Really. Bring down this wall! That was a rare historical  case of synergy. Otherwise, Regan was a big FAIL. Really. Been there done it. He never had a clue. Neither do most of you little kids.



My first Presidential vote was for Reagan. He cut taxes so people could keep more of their own money, he encouraged investment and he challenged and defeated the USSR. He freed hundreds of millions from the horrific oppression of Progressive nightmare of Communist rule, which is why the "American" Left loathes and despises him


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say Stalin was an "Icon".
> 
> Oh, that's right. I actually recognize the USSR's key role in saving the world from Fascism.  NOt to worry, the rate Corporate entities are going, Fascism is coming back in style.
> 
> But anyway, yeah, Saddam was  bad guy. Saddam was a bad guy when he was invading Iran, and Reagan was arming him and helping him get bogus agricultural loans from US Banks to buy weapons.  Saddam was  bad guy when he was gassing the Kurds and Reagan went to the UN and denied it was happening.
> 
> Of course, in 2003, he was a bad guy, still, but his military was crippled, and his authority really didn't extend far beyond Baghdad.
> 
> Certainly not worth the lives of 4500 servicemen while Bin Laden was living in Pakistan still plotting against us.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about Stalin, Saddam and bin Laden. You'll get over it. Now tell me what Benghazi got us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm sorry about Bin Laden and Saddam, too.
> 
> Reagan propped both of them up, and they both turned around and bit us in the ass.
> 
> I also think getting involved in Libya's Civil War was a mistake.  The EU took advantage and we went along with it and it was kind of stupid.
> 
> But 4 dead in Benghazi is nothing compared to 5000 dead in Iraq or 241 dead in Beruit.
> 
> But the BLACK GUY did it!
Click to expand...

Yeah, and FDR did far more to prop up Stalin than Reagan ever did for your heroes. 

I was talking about Benghazi, not Libya's civil war. Don't be an ass all your life, take a day off now and then.


----------



## hunarcy

JoeB131 said:


> Reagan propped both of them up, and they both turned around and bit us in the ass.




Every once in a while, I need to remind you that Reagan didn't "prop up" bin Laden and that you're a bald face liar.

Why anyone takes you seriously befuddles me.


----------



## Oldstyle

Well, as usual...JoeB is doing his best song and dance to cover up the inadequacies of this Administration.  Benghazi doesn't matter to Joe because it was only four men and two of them were "mercenaries".  Barack Obama blatantly lying about what happened in Benghazi doesn't matter either because anyone who brings that up is obviously a racist!  (eye roll) 

At the same time Joe can't seem to grasp that the South ISN'T the same place it was in 1964 (duh, what place IS!) and that the Klan isn't running things in places like Montgomery, Alabama anymore.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Barack Obama isn't "EEEEEEEvil"...he's simply a man who's totally in over his head with a job he never should have had in the first place.  Barry fucked up Benghazi because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues who ALSO don't have a clue what they are doing!
> 
> It's amateur hour in the White House and the rest of the world knows it even if the far left of American politics won't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, right.  I always notice that when someone calls you on your obsession, you try to sound "reasonable".
> 
> So let's compare shall we Benghazi to Iraq.
> 
> In Iraq, Bush ignored the UN, most of our allies and his own generals.  He went on an invasion of Iraq  over weapons that didn't exist and ties to Al Qaeda that weren't there.  Soldiers were sent in with inadequate armor, and military contractors made a fortune overcharging the Pentagon for basic services.
> 
> As a result, 4500 soldiers and 550 contractos died, really pretty much over nothing. The new Government in Baghdad is an ally of Iran and Al Qaeda has free reign in the Sunni Triangle. Oh, yeah, and we can't even agree how many Iraqis died needlessly.
> 
> Now. Benghazi. Two diplomats and two Mercenaries died in a four hour period.
> 
> "OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS THE FUCKING ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!  He doesn't know what he's doing, he wants to destroy America the whole world is laughing at us!!!!"
> 
> NO, guy, you do not have a problem.  Really.
Click to expand...


It's obvious who the reasonable person is and isn't.  I point out that Barack Obama is struggling as President because he doesn't have the job skills the position requires and has surrounded himself with ideologues with the same problem and you immediately accuse me of both racism and of calling Obama the Anti Christ or a commie...it's laughable!

I've never accused Barack Obama of being a communist or the Anti Christ.  Quite frankly I could care less about his pigmentation or his religious leanings.  What has always concerned me about Barack Obama is that his policies are based on ideology and don't take into account reality or human nature.


----------



## hunarcy

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Barack Obama isn't "EEEEEEEvil"...he's simply a man who's totally in over his head with a job he never should have had in the first place.  Barry fucked up Benghazi because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues who ALSO don't have a clue what they are doing!
> 
> It's amateur hour in the White House and the rest of the world knows it even if the far left of American politics won't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, right.  I always notice that when someone calls you on your obsession, you try to sound "reasonable".
> 
> So let's compare shall we Benghazi to Iraq.
> 
> In Iraq, Bush ignored the UN, most of our allies and his own generals.  He went on an invasion of Iraq  over weapons that didn't exist and ties to Al Qaeda that weren't there.  Soldiers were sent in with inadequate armor, and military contractors made a fortune overcharging the Pentagon for basic services.
> 
> As a result, 4500 soldiers and 550 contractos died, really pretty much over nothing. The new Government in Baghdad is an ally of Iran and Al Qaeda has free reign in the Sunni Triangle. Oh, yeah, and we can't even agree how many Iraqis died needlessly.
> 
> Now. Benghazi. Two diplomats and two Mercenaries died in a four hour period.
> 
> "OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS THE FUCKING ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!  He doesn't know what he's doing, he wants to destroy America the whole world is laughing at us!!!!"
> 
> NO, guy, you do not have a problem.  Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious who the reasonable person is and isn't.  I point out that Barack Obama is struggling as President because he doesn't have the job skills the position requires and has surrounded himself with ideologues with the same problem and you immediately accuse me of both racism and of calling Obama the Anti Christ or a commie...it's laughable!
> 
> I've never accused Barack Obama of being a communist or the Anti Christ.  Quite frankly I could care less about his pigmentation or his religious leanings.  What has always concerned me about Barack Obama is that his policies are based on ideology and don't take into account reality or human nature.
Click to expand...


Poor old trollingJoe can't accept that the Clintons were handed a similar defeat over their desire to control heath care because he can't talk about race if he does!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> Odd that in a thread devoted to the history of Reagan, the right keeps wanting so to DEFLECT the subject.
> 
> 
> Or perhaps not so odd at all, eh?



I know.Its comedy gold how when confronted with pesky facts about Reagans corruption, how they changed the topic HUNDREDS of times here switching gears talking about how Obama has ruined the economy when this is the history section.

which is really hysterical because nobody has come on here and said that they liked Obama either.

they sure like to deflect when they get desperate dont they?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that in a thread devoted to the history of Reagan, the right keeps wanting so to DEFLECT the subject.
> 
> 
> Or perhaps not so odd at all, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of all deflections, Benghazi. Like the attack on a facility in Benghazi comes close to comparing to the attacks on the Embassy and annex in Beirut while Reagan was President.
Click to expand...


thats why they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So let me see if I've got this straight?  Because one of the two CIA operators was hired on a temporary basis...they are both "mercenaries" and we shouldn't give a shit about their deaths?  Is that the "JoeB" take on the world today?  And because you need someone to blame OTHER than Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton for the debacle that Benghazi became...you've decided to blame some of the only people who actually DID something to try and save Christopher Stevens' life...giving their own lives in the process?  Now in your warped little mind, Doherty and Woods were "causing trouble" when they went to the burning Consulate and saved those people?  They were "causing trouble" when they were on that roof top of the Annex trying desperately to hold off repeated assaults by heavily armed terrorists?
> 
> Like I said before, Joe...if stupid was money...you'd be the richest guy I know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I like I said before, your hatred for Obama has turned into a brain disease.
> 
> Because unlike Frank, I'll admit, you do sound smart, but frankly, (no pun intended) your hate kind of blinds you.
> 
> You fools on the right did not give a shit about the deaths of 4500 servicemen (and hundreds of Contractors) killed in Iraq because Bush and Cheney LIED about WMD's. (And, no, I'm not going to relitigate the whole "Intelligence Reports" shit.  They said there were WMD's and there weren't.)
> 
> But the deaths of these two State Department officials and two mercenaries is the worst fucking thing ever, oh, my God, it's all Obama's fault and not the CIA for operating a black site there or the asshole who made a video that pissed off thousands of Musliims or even the people who actually attacked.
> 
> Nope. It's Obama's fault.
> 
> And frankly, your approach to every issue seems to be this. Obama did this because he's EEEEEEEEEEvil.
> 
> And Faux News will drag the families of the Mercenaries on TV everynight to whine about it.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

MaryL said:


> I hate myths. Kennedy to Obama. PPTHHHT! Regan gave the first amnesty to illegals, and he flip flopped on committing to our troops in Lebanon after  HUMAS killed 210 American servicemen. Practically made 9/11 happen. Then the PATCO thing, jesus, talk about irony. What the heck?  Regan was a friggin disaster.



thats the understatement of the century.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

MaryL said:


> Hmm. A sock? Cute. Deflect the truth. Can I  help you with that supposed cough?I am getting one of those too. Obama care.  I lived thought the Regan Admin, and it wasn't  what it was cracked up to be. No. Really. Bring down this wall! That was a rare historical  case of synergy. Otherwise, Regan was a big FAIL. Really. Been there done it. He never had a clue. Neither do most of you little kids.



Petty much everybody that debates with Crusader Retard laughs at him around here.

He is the resident troll at USMB.I used to think for a long time that he got treated unfairly around here by many posters because of his posts about Obama not being a us citizen in the past but then when I came to this thread,i then realised why so many people laugh at his stupidity he displays here everyday. He reminds me of a poster that used to post here  called Pale Retard.

Pale used to call people who said Bush was the most corrupt president ever loony nut cases because he is a republicrat- i say that cause its a one party system designed to look like two parties so its the republicrats and demopublicans,any kind of facts you gave that proved his corruption he blatantly ignored and called people idiots ect when they told the truth about him.  a radio show host announcer always talked about Bushs corruption all the time exposing it and he just called him a nutcase.

Well after Obama became president-this announcer talked about Obamas corruption and how he is the most corrupt president ever as well,which is  true,everyone that gets in is always worse than the previous one,has been the last  50 years.

 Pale Retard hated Obama so much and had an irrational hatred over him with every post being about Obama all the time,so that when that radio announcer made a documentary video on Obama he posted that video of his on him.

All of a sudden that radio announcer NOW has credibility since he is all of a sudden pissng on Obama.a topic near and dear to him. and then when posters brought that fact up on his thread,he ran off and never came back since he was called out on his hypocrisy.

Crusader Retard displays the exact same hypocrisy.Troll Frank here has made many posts in the past talking about Obama not being a us citizen and its  what that radio announcer has said many times over the years as well.He has ALSO spoke the truth that Reagan was corrupt and ran the most corrupt administration at the time as well. 

Crusader Retard like the hypocrite troll he is wants it both ways,he wants that announcer to be wrong about Reagan,but to be RIGHT about Obama. what a freaking hypocrite huh? He cant have it both ways.

 He is either wrong about both Obama and Reagan,or right about both.He is right about both.That radio announcer has mentioned the truth many times that JFK was ur last REAL president we had who served the people instead of the bankers and the elite.The last president we had not a puppet for the establishment and he paid the price for that.

You should read Franks past posts on this thread.He goes into metldown mode when confronted with pesky facts he cant refute. He was gone for a few days having to get some pills to calm down his blood pressure when it rose really high.I have no doubt he takes blood pressure pills to keep from having a nervous breakdown over pesky facts about Reagan.


You have found out what everybody here finds out about Frank.when confronted with pesky facts he cant refute,he evades them and changesthe subject. Him and none of the other Reagan worshippers ever have any answers for these pesky facts below about Reagan,they just come back with pitiful one liners saying its not true knowing they are cornered.



    Before any conservative dismisses what we have to say about Reagan on this site just because we are liberals, after taking a good hard look at the record, the very conservative site Jesus-is-Savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm came to many of the very same conclusions that we reached, i.e. ( in their own words) : 
        "Let us remember Reagan as he really was : 



Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment 


Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So let me see if I've got this straight?  Because one of the two CIA operators was hired on a temporary basis...they are both "mercenaries" and we shouldn't give a shit about their deaths?  Is that the "JoeB" take on the world today?  And because you need someone to blame OTHER than Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton for the debacle that Benghazi became...you've decided to blame some of the only people who actually DID something to try and save Christopher Stevens' life...giving their own lives in the process?  Now in your warped little mind, Doherty and Woods were "causing trouble" when they went to the burning Consulate and saved those people?  They were "causing trouble" when they were on that roof top of the Annex trying desperately to hold off repeated assaults by heavily armed terrorists?
> 
> Like I said before, Joe...if stupid was money...you'd be the richest guy I know!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I like I said before, your hatred for Obama has turned into a brain disease.
> 
> Because unlike Frank, I'll admit, you do sound smart, but frankly, (no pun intended) your hate kind of blinds you.
> 
> You fools on the right did not give a shit about the deaths of 4500 servicemen (and hundreds of Contractors) killed in Iraq because Bush and Cheney LIED about WMD's. (And, no, I'm not going to relitigate the whole "Intelligence Reports" shit.  They said there were WMD's and there weren't.)
> 
> But the deaths of these two State Department officials and two mercenaries is the worst fucking thing ever, oh, my God, it's all Obama's fault and not the CIA for operating a black site there or the asshole who made a video that pissed off thousands of Musliims or even the people who actually attacked.
> 
> Nope. It's Obama's fault.
> 
> And frankly, your approach to every issue seems to be this. Obama did this because he's EEEEEEEEEEvil.
> 
> And Faux News will drag the families of the Mercenaries on TV everynight to whine about it.
Click to expand...


thats hypocrite trollstyle for ya.Obama is evil but Reagan was not.Obama ruined the economy but Reagan did not,the guy has such a racial hatred towards Obama he refuses to even try and refute these facts about Reagan.

Before any conservative dismisses what we have to say about Reagan on this site just because we are liberals, after taking a good hard look at the record, the very conservative site Jesus-is-Savior.com/Wolves/reagan.htm came to many of the very same conclusions that we reached, i.e. ( in their own words) : 
"Let us remember Reagan as he really was : 



&#8226;Liar 
&#8226;Thief 
&#8226;Mass murderer 
&#8226;Supporter of abortion 
&#8226;War criminal 
&#8226; 
&#8226; 

&#8226;Destroyer of freedom 
&#8226;Traitor of the American people 
&#8226;Corporate whore 
&#8226;Destroyer of the environment


----------



## Oldstyle

Reagan gave us the longest sustained period of economic growth in our nation's history...Barack Obama has given us the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression...but you think Reagan was bad for our economy and Obama is good for it?  

LOL...I'm impressed by how you don't let reality impose itself on your spammed rants, 9/11!  You are a TRUE believer!


----------



## Oldstyle

And since you've accused me of "racial hatred"?  Here's a challenge for you.  I've got a little over nine thousand posts on this board.  Show me *ONE* where I said something racist.  Since I've got SUCH a racial hatred it should be incredibly easy for you to do...right?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from you trollstyle.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about Stalin, Saddam and bin Laden. You'll get over it. Now tell me what Benghazi got us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry about Bin Laden and Saddam, too.
> 
> Reagan propped both of them up, and they both turned around and bit us in the ass.
> 
> I also think getting involved in Libya's Civil War was a mistake.  The EU took advantage and we went along with it and it was kind of stupid.
> 
> But 4 dead in Benghazi is nothing compared to 5000 dead in Iraq or 241 dead in Beruit.
> 
> But the BLACK GUY did it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and FDR did far more to prop up Stalin than Reagan ever did for your heroes.
> 
> I was talking about Benghazi, not Libya's civil war. Don't be an ass all your life, take a day off now and then.
Click to expand...


Actually, I was talking about Libya's civil war. 

You were talking about Stalin for some reason.  

Incidently, FDR didn't prop up Stalin. Stalin saved the rest of the world from Hitler. 

Now, I know that probably rubs people the wrong way, but frankly, Stalin had to BEG FDR and Churchill to open a second front.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Barack Obama isn't "EEEEEEEvil"...he's simply a man who's totally in over his head with a job he never should have had in the first place.  Barry fucked up Benghazi because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and he's surrounded himself with fellow ideologues who ALSO don't have a clue what they are doing!
> 
> It's amateur hour in the White House and the rest of the world knows it even if the far left of American politics won't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, right.  I always notice that when someone calls you on your obsession, you try to sound "reasonable".
> 
> So let's compare shall we Benghazi to Iraq.
> 
> In Iraq, Bush ignored the UN, most of our allies and his own generals.  He went on an invasion of Iraq  over weapons that didn't exist and ties to Al Qaeda that weren't there.  Soldiers were sent in with inadequate armor, and military contractors made a fortune overcharging the Pentagon for basic services.
> 
> As a result, 4500 soldiers and 550 contractos died, really pretty much over nothing. The new Government in Baghdad is an ally of Iran and Al Qaeda has free reign in the Sunni Triangle. Oh, yeah, and we can't even agree how many Iraqis died needlessly.
> 
> Now. Benghazi. Two diplomats and two Mercenaries died in a four hour period.
> 
> "OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS THE FUCKING ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!  He doesn't know what he's doing, he wants to destroy America the whole world is laughing at us!!!!"
> 
> NO, guy, you do not have a problem.  Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious who the reasonable person is and isn't.  I point out that Barack Obama is struggling as President because he doesn't have the job skills the position requires and has surrounded himself with ideologues with the same problem and you immediately accuse me of both racism and of calling Obama the Anti Christ or a commie...it's laughable!
> 
> I've never accused Barack Obama of being a communist or the Anti Christ.  Quite frankly I could care less about his pigmentation or his religious leanings.  What has always concerned me about Barack Obama is that his policies are based on ideology and don't take into account reality or human nature.
Click to expand...


On his worst day, Obama is not the complete fuckup Bush was. 

I notice you keep avoiding talking about Bush and Iraq.  Now why is that?  

I mean, you keep screaming about these deep conspiracies about videos and shit... 

But your boy Bush said there were WMD's and links to Al Qaeda, and that's why we HAD to get Saddam.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry about Bin Laden and Saddam, too.
> 
> Reagan propped both of them up, and they both turned around and bit us in the ass.
> 
> I also think getting involved in Libya's Civil War was a mistake.  The EU took advantage and we went along with it and it was kind of stupid.
> 
> But 4 dead in Benghazi is nothing compared to 5000 dead in Iraq or 241 dead in Beruit.
> 
> But the BLACK GUY did it!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and FDR did far more to prop up Stalin than Reagan ever did for your heroes.
> 
> I was talking about Benghazi, not Libya's civil war. Don't be an ass all your life, take a day off now and then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I was talking about Libya's civil war.
> 
> You were talking about Stalin for some reason.
> 
> Incidently, FDR didn't prop up Stalin. Stalin saved the rest of the world from Hitler.
> 
> Now, I know that probably rubs people the wrong way, but frankly, Stalin had to BEG FDR and Churchill to open a second front.
Click to expand...


As usual, your knowledge of history is woefully lacking, Joe!  Without Lend/Lease the Soviets may very well have not survived the initial Nazi onslaught.  Stalin aligned himself WITH Hitler to plunder Poland and the Baltic States.  The stupid ass also made Hitler's job easier by killing off the majority of the Soviet Officer Corps right before the war.  The truth is that the rest of the Allies saved the Soviets from the Germans.  Did Stalin have to beg for a second front?  Yes, he did.  Then once the second front was established the end of the Third Reich was only a matter of time.  

The case can be made that the Soviet "people" saved the world from Hitler since Stalin used his own people as cannon fodder for much of the early parts of World War II.  He had little choice in the matter because his own strategic blunders had left the Soviet military in shambles.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, right.  I always notice that when someone calls you on your obsession, you try to sound "reasonable".
> 
> So let's compare shall we Benghazi to Iraq.
> 
> In Iraq, Bush ignored the UN, most of our allies and his own generals.  He went on an invasion of Iraq  over weapons that didn't exist and ties to Al Qaeda that weren't there.  Soldiers were sent in with inadequate armor, and military contractors made a fortune overcharging the Pentagon for basic services.
> 
> As a result, 4500 soldiers and 550 contractos died, really pretty much over nothing. The new Government in Baghdad is an ally of Iran and Al Qaeda has free reign in the Sunni Triangle. Oh, yeah, and we can't even agree how many Iraqis died needlessly.
> 
> Now. Benghazi. Two diplomats and two Mercenaries died in a four hour period.
> 
> "OH MY GOD, OBAMA IS THE FUCKING ANTI-CHRIST!!!!!!  He doesn't know what he's doing, he wants to destroy America the whole world is laughing at us!!!!"
> 
> NO, guy, you do not have a problem.  Really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious who the reasonable person is and isn't.  I point out that Barack Obama is struggling as President because he doesn't have the job skills the position requires and has surrounded himself with ideologues with the same problem and you immediately accuse me of both racism and of calling Obama the Anti Christ or a commie...it's laughable!
> 
> I've never accused Barack Obama of being a communist or the Anti Christ.  Quite frankly I could care less about his pigmentation or his religious leanings.  What has always concerned me about Barack Obama is that his policies are based on ideology and don't take into account reality or human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On his worst day, Obama is not the complete fuckup Bush was.
> 
> I notice you keep avoiding talking about Bush and Iraq.  Now why is that?
> 
> I mean, you keep screaming about these deep conspiracies about videos and shit...
> 
> But your boy Bush said there were WMD's and links to Al Qaeda, and that's why we HAD to get Saddam.
Click to expand...



Obama is a naive child *playing* at being a world leader.  Our enemies don't respect him and our allies don't have faith in him.  He has no foreign policy agenda other than an abdication of leadership by America.

The only screaming about videos was done by the Obama White House when they blamed an obscure video for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. 

Saddam Hussein was scum of the highest order and the world is a better place without he and his two sons in it.  When Bush showed that he wasn't going to put up with Saddam's flaunting of the UN sanctions placed upon Iraq following the first Gulf War.  Naive liberals like yourself can't grasp the effect that taking out Saddam had on other despots like Khaddafi in Libya who voluntarily gave up his secret atomic bomb research facility because he was worried he might be next.  You will NEVER see that kind of thing happen with Barry as President because other foreign leaders see him as ineffectual and weak.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> As usual, your knowledge of history is woefully lacking, Joe!  Without Lend/Lease the Soviets may very well have not survived the initial Nazi onslaught.  Stalin aligned himself WITH Hitler to plunder Poland and the Baltic States.  The stupid ass also made Hitler's job easier by killing off the majority of the Soviet Officer Corps right before the war.  The truth is that the rest of the Allies saved the Soviets from the Germans.  Did Stalin have to beg for a second front?  Yes, he did.  Then once the second front was established the end of the Third Reich was only a matter of time.
> 
> The case can be made that the Soviet "people" saved the world from Hitler since Stalin used his own people as cannon fodder for much of the early parts of World War II.  He had little choice in the matter because his own strategic blunders had left the Soviet military in shambles.



Yeah, I realize that's the kind of shit history you learn at a university where they teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class.  

Stalin alligned himself with HItler becaue the west was weak and willing to throw other countries under the bus hoping Hitler would take out Stalin for them.  and really, Hitler got more out of that deal than Stalin did, because trade with the USSR kept the Reich supplied with grain and fuel in those early parts of the war before he overran the west. 

There were single battles in Russia that were bigger than the ENTIRE western front.  That was the point.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> Obama is a naive child *playing* at being a world leader.  Our enemies don't respect him and our allies don't have faith in him.  He has no foreign policy agenda other than an abdication of leadership by America.



And this was where the ODS comes in. Do you really think Putin would have acted a single bit differently if Romney was in there?  Do you really think Romney was going to threaten him with the MOrmon War God or something?   The reality is, Once the mob in Kiev threw out the pro-Russian president, Putin had to act to save face. 



Oldstyle said:


> [
> The only screaming about videos was done by the Obama White House when they blamed an obscure video for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.



This would be the same "obscure video" that caused riots in Egypt, tunsina, Yemen, Lebanon, and dozens of other countries, but LET'S PRETEND that it was no factor in Libya, because, hey, we have some bizarre ODS fantasy that this was an Al Qaeda attack that Obama was covering up. 

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Oldstyle said:


> [
> Saddam Hussein was scum of the highest order and the world is a better place without he and his two sons in it.  When Bush showed that he wasn't going to put up with Saddam's flaunting of the UN sanctions placed upon Iraq following the first Gulf War.  Naive liberals like yourself can't grasp the effect that taking out Saddam had on other despots like Khaddafi in Libya who voluntarily gave up his secret atomic bomb research facility because he was worried he might be next.  You will NEVER see that kind of thing happen with Barry as President because other foreign leaders see him as ineffectual and weak.



Actually, I take quite a different reading. 

Saddam gave up his WMD's in 1991.  We murdered him anyway.
Khadafy gave up his WMD's in 2003.  We murdered him anyway. 

So what's the motivation for the Iranian Mullahs to give up their nukes?  

Khadafy was nowhere near a bomb, and frankly, his main motivation was to get more investment from Europe. Until the EU got some stupid idea that the rebels would be easier to work with. 

Meanwhile, on Bush's watch, the NOrth Koreans pretty much flipped off the world by testing a bomb, the Pakistanis accellerated their program, and the Iranians are working very hard on a bomb. 

The reason why we are preceived as weak is that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on military stuff, and we couldn't even subdue a place like Iraq.  Which is what happens when you use a war to reward all your cronies with fat military contracts.


----------



## editec

> Actually, I take quite a different reading.
> 
> Saddam gave up his WMD's in 1991. We murdered him anyway.
> Khadafy gave up his WMD's in 2003. We murdered him anyway.
> 
> So what's the motivation for the Iranian Mullahs to give up their nukes?
> 
> Khadafy was nowhere near a bomb, and frankly, his main motivation was to get more investment from Europe. Until the EU got some stupid idea that the rebels would be easier to work with.



Khadiffi was killed because the MASTERS need to get control over this:

_Great Man-Made River​From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Schematic drawing of the project. Note that different routes have been proposed for the not-yet-implemented phases (dashed). Tobruk may for instance end up connected to Ajdabiya instead of to the Jaghboub well field.

The Great Man-Made River (GMR, &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1607;&#1585; &#1575;&#1604;&#1589;&#1606;&#1575;&#1593;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1592;&#1610;&#1605 is a network of pipes that supplies water to the Sahara Desert in Libya, from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System fossil aquifer. It is the world's largest irrigation project.[1]

According to its website, it is the largest underground network of pipes (2,820 kilometres (1,750 mi))[2] and aqueducts in the world. It consists of more than 1,300 wells, most more than 500 m deep, and supplies 6,500,000 m3 of fresh water per day to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere. The late Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi described it as the "Eighth Wonder of the World."[3]_

The MASTERS are long range planner.

They know that potable WATER is going to become more precious than oil.

Hell!~  why do you think they're about the business of wrecking most of the USA's water sources via FRACKING?

Water conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> Actually, I take quite a different reading.
> 
> Saddam gave up his WMD's in 1991. We murdered him anyway.
> Khadafy gave up his WMD's in 2003. We murdered him anyway.
> 
> So what's the motivation for the Iranian Mullahs to give up their nukes?
> 
> Khadafy was nowhere near a bomb, and frankly, his main motivation was to get more investment from Europe. Until the EU got some stupid idea that the rebels would be easier to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Khadiffi was killed because the MASTERS need to get control over this:
> 
> _Great Man-Made River​From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Schematic drawing of the project. Note that different routes have been proposed for the not-yet-implemented phases (dashed). Tobruk may for instance end up connected to Ajdabiya instead of to the Jaghboub well field.
> 
> The Great Man-Made River (GMR, &#1575;&#1604;&#1606;&#1607;&#1585; &#1575;&#1604;&#1589;&#1606;&#1575;&#1593;&#1610; &#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1592;&#1610;&#1605 is a network of pipes that supplies water to the Sahara Desert in Libya, from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System fossil aquifer. It is the world's largest irrigation project.[1]
> 
> According to its website, it is the largest underground network of pipes (2,820 kilometres (1,750 mi))[2] and aqueducts in the world. It consists of more than 1,300 wells, most more than 500 m deep, and supplies 6,500,000 m3 of fresh water per day to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere. The late Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi described it as the "Eighth Wonder of the World."[3]_
> 
> The MASTERS are long range planner.
> 
> They know that potable WATER is going to become more precious than oil.
> 
> Hell!~  why do you think they're about the business of wrecking most of the USA's water sources via FRACKING?
> 
> Water conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


the fed issued orders to the CIA to kill saddam and Khadiffi just as they did jfk since like jfk,they wanted to issue their own free money.The bankers are the true people behind wars as im sure you're already aware of.Obama,Bush and other leaders of counties are just their puppets doing their bidding from them.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> As usual, your knowledge of history is woefully lacking, Joe!  Without Lend/Lease the Soviets may very well have not survived the initial Nazi onslaught.  Stalin aligned himself WITH Hitler to plunder Poland and the Baltic States.  The stupid ass also made Hitler's job easier by killing off the majority of the Soviet Officer Corps right before the war.  The truth is that the rest of the Allies saved the Soviets from the Germans.  Did Stalin have to beg for a second front?  Yes, he did.  Then once the second front was established the end of the Third Reich was only a matter of time.
> 
> The case can be made that the Soviet "people" saved the world from Hitler since Stalin used his own people as cannon fodder for much of the early parts of World War II.  He had little choice in the matter because his own strategic blunders had left the Soviet military in shambles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I realize that's the kind of shit history you learn at a university where they teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class.
> 
> Stalin alligned himself with HItler becaue the west was weak and willing to throw other countries under the bus hoping Hitler would take out Stalin for them.  and really, Hitler got more out of that deal than Stalin did, because trade with the USSR kept the Reich supplied with grain and fuel in those early parts of the war before he overran the west.
> 
> There were single battles in Russia that were bigger than the ENTIRE western front.  That was the point.
Click to expand...


My degree is from the University of Massachusetts...and they don't teach "shit history" or "talking snakes" there.  They did however teach real history...something which you obviously know very little about.  Stalin aligned himself with the Nazis because Hitler agreed to let him have half of Poland, and all of the Baltic States.  He also did so because his own actions had weakened the Soviet military so badly that he was desperately trying to buy time to fix things...hence the treaty with Germany.  As for what Hitler gained?  It was *always* about keeping the Soviets from reacting militarily when Hitler invaded Poland!  Hitler believed that the French and Great Britain wouldn't come to the defense of Poland because neither had come to the defense of Czechoslovakia a year before after Germany broke agreements with both that it wouldn't invade Czechoslovakia.  By signing a 10 year nonaggression pact with Stalin, Hitler felt he could simply pluck Poland just as he had previously done with Czechoslovakia.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Obama is a naive child *playing* at being a world leader.  Our enemies don't respect him and our allies don't have faith in him.  He has no foreign policy agenda other than an abdication of leadership by America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was where the ODS comes in. Do you really think Putin would have acted a single bit differently if Romney was in there?  Do you really think Romney was going to threaten him with the MOrmon War God or something?   The reality is, Once the mob in Kiev threw out the pro-Russian president, Putin had to act to save face.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The only screaming about videos was done by the Obama White House when they blamed an obscure video for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be the same "obscure video" that caused riots in Egypt, tunsina, Yemen, Lebanon, and dozens of other countries, but LET'S PRETEND that it was no factor in Libya, because, hey, we have some bizarre ODS fantasy that this was an Al Qaeda attack that Obama was covering up.
> 
> Reactions to Innocence of Muslims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Saddam Hussein was scum of the highest order and the world is a better place without he and his two sons in it.  When Bush showed that he wasn't going to put up with Saddam's flaunting of the UN sanctions placed upon Iraq following the first Gulf War.  Naive liberals like yourself can't grasp the effect that taking out Saddam had on other despots like Khaddafi in Libya who voluntarily gave up his secret atomic bomb research facility because he was worried he might be next.  You will NEVER see that kind of thing happen with Barry as President because other foreign leaders see him as ineffectual and weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I take quite a different reading.
> 
> Saddam gave up his WMD's in 1991.  We murdered him anyway.
> Khadafy gave up his WMD's in 2003.  We murdered him anyway.
> 
> So what's the motivation for the Iranian Mullahs to give up their nukes?
> 
> Khadafy was nowhere near a bomb, and frankly, his main motivation was to get more investment from Europe. Until the EU got some stupid idea that the rebels would be easier to work with.
> 
> Meanwhile, on Bush's watch, the NOrth Koreans pretty much flipped off the world by testing a bomb, the Pakistanis accellerated their program, and the Iranians are working very hard on a bomb.
> 
> The reason why we are preceived as weak is that we spend more than the rest of the world combined on military stuff, and we couldn't even subdue a place like Iraq.  Which is what happens when you use a war to reward all your cronies with fat military contracts.
Click to expand...


Jesus, but you are clueless!  We CRUSHED Iraq.  It was about as lopsided a conflict as there has ever been in the history of war.  What we struggled with was how to deal with the aftermath of the conflict.  Nobody perceived our military as weak from the invasion of Iraq.  It demonstrated that we had an incredibly powerful and skilled military.


----------



## Oldstyle

And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi?  LOL  Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi?  LOL  Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!



Most people who are not obsessed with blaming the US government and it's leaders understand that demonstrations were being held outside of Embassies all across the mid east at the time of Benghazi. The demonstrators carried signs and made statements blaming the demomstrations on the video in question. 

Embassy security response teams were on high alert and stretched to their limits. When the attack began in Benghazi, a small facility with limited numbers of personel, those responsible for security had no way of knowing the nature of the attack or if it was spontaeious, a diversion or a trap.

The attack and subsequent politicization in the middle of the crisis by a Presidential candidate and the continued politicization highlighted weaknesses in the overall security posture for US Emabassies. In addition the politicization puts unfair and dangerous levels of stress and pressure on implementing risky and often extremely dangerous operations due to the knowledge that if the operation goes negative, huge investigations and exposure that jeapordizes ongoing and future operations will occur.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> My degree is from the University of Massachusetts...and they don't teach "shit history" or "talking snakes" there.  They did however teach real history...something which you obviously know very little about.  Stalin aligned himself with the Nazis because Hitler agreed to let him have half of Poland, and all of the Baltic States.  He also did so because his own actions had weakened the Soviet military so badly that he was desperately trying to buy time to fix things...hence the treaty with Germany.  As for what Hitler gained?  It was *always* about keeping the Soviets from reacting militarily when Hitler invaded Poland!  Hitler believed that the French and Great Britain wouldn't come to the defense of Poland because neither had come to the defense of Czechoslovakia a year before after Germany broke agreements with both that it wouldn't invade Czechoslovakia.  By signing a 10 year nonaggression pact with Stalin, Hitler felt he could simply pluck Poland just as he had previously done with Czechoslovakia.



Again, your understanding is barely "Talking Snakes' level. 

The real problem was, that Hitler approached stalin, not the other way around.  

It was because Britian and France wouldn't make any accommedations on the Danzig Corridor, had committed to the COlonel's Regime in Poland to come to their aid so that the COlonel's wouldn't negotiate.  

Here's the thing.  The territory that Stalin took had been Russia's before the war. 

You also fail to appreciate the real thing HItler got out of Ribbontrop Molotov was continued trade with the USSR.  Not that you'd get this at all or anything.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Jesus, but you are clueless!  We CRUSHED Iraq.  It was about as lopsided a conflict as there has ever been in the history of war.  What we struggled with was how to deal with the aftermath of the conflict.  Nobody perceived our military as weak from the invasion of Iraq.  It demonstrated that we had an incredibly powerful and skilled military.



Guy, the whole fucking world hated us after IRaq.   Probably because you had your boy Rummy talking about "Old Europe" and Bush spouting shit about "If you're not with us, you're against us!"   

And then there were no WMD's, and we couldn't contain a simple uprising.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi?  LOL  Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!



Shown by who?  The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."  

But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi?  LOL  Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who are not obsessed with blaming the US government and it's leaders understand that demonstrations were being held outside of Embassies all across the mid east at the time of Benghazi. The demonstrators carried signs and made statements blaming the demomstrations on the video in question.
> 
> Embassy security response teams were on high alert and stretched to their limits. When the attack began in Benghazi, a small facility with limited numbers of personel, those responsible for security had no way of knowing the nature of the attack or if it was spontaeious, a diversion or a trap.
> 
> The attack and subsequent politicization in the middle of the crisis by a Presidential candidate and the continued politicization highlighted weaknesses in the overall security posture for US Emabassies. In addition the politicization puts unfair and dangerous levels of stress and pressure on implementing risky and often extremely dangerous operations due to the knowledge that if the operation goes negative, huge investigations and exposure that jeapordizes ongoing and future operations will occur.
Click to expand...


Dude, that was one of the worst "summaries" of what took place in Benghazi I've ever heard.  If, as you claim Embassy security was on "high alert and stretched to their limits" then kindly explain why security forces protecting our Ambassador in Libya had just been shrunk by the State Department?  As for those in charge not knowing the nature of the attack?  They not only had real time streaming video of what was happening in Benghazi...they had TWO drones flying over the scene of the attack giving them "eyes on target" information about what was taking place there.  I can't think of a situation where those in charge knew MORE about what was happening on the ground than our leaders knew about what was happening that night in Benghazi.

As for your claim that "exposure" of what happened that night puts future operations at risk?  That's absurd.  The only *risk* is to the reputations of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton for lying about what took place in Benghazi.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi?  LOL  Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shown by who?  The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."
> 
> But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!
Click to expand...


There was no "riot", you horses ass!  What happened in Benghazi was an attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists.  If the New York Times did an investigation and came up with the conclusion that you state they did, then what that proves is how "in the tank" they are for this Administration.  Something which shouldn't surprise anyone.  The Times used to have a reputation for journalistic excellence.  Now they have a reputation for liberal bias.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're STILL trying to pretend that the video caused the attack in Benghazi?  LOL  Might as well continue to tell the big lie even though it's been shown to be nothing but a lie for a long long time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shown by who?  The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."
> 
> But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no "riot", you horses ass!  What happened in Benghazi was an attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists.  If the New York Times did an investigation and came up with the conclusion that you state they did, then what that proves is how "in the tank" they are for this Administration.  Something which shouldn't surprise anyone.  The Times used to have a reputation for journalistic excellence.  Now they have a reputation for liberal bias.
Click to expand...


Yes, whenever someone contradicts whatever shit you've heard on Faux News, they have a "liberal bias".  

All those reports inother countries of riots and demonstrations against the film?  LIberal Bias. 

Pointing out Obama called it an act of terror the next day when the Mormon said he didn't?   

Liberal bias. 

It must be nice to live in your own fact-free world where reality doesn't seep in.


----------



## editec

Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?

Reagan?

_Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_


----------



## Iceweasel

editec said:


> Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?
> 
> Reagan?
> 
> _Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_


Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.


----------



## Camp

Iceweasel said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?
> 
> Reagan?
> 
> _Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
Click to expand...


Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied. 
A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing.


Remembering it is great. I remember it. I remember the middle class doing better than the Carter years too so you're full of shit. But you did prove my point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?
> 
> Reagan?
> 
> _Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
> A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.
Click to expand...


FDR averaged 20% Unemployed his first 2 terms. How is that success?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
> A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR averaged 20% Unemployed his first 2 terms. How is that success?
Click to expand...


Greatness isn't just judged by how an economy does during a Presidency. There are factors beyond a Presidents control that effect the economy and people understand that. OPEC and terrorism had enormous effects on the Presidency of Carter. He stood up to both of those forces and paid a price. The end result was that terrorism and America's dependence on mid-east oil would flourish under his replacement.
Americans were hunted down, captured, tortured and murdered under Reagan. They were blown up on the ground and blown up in the skies. His response was to sell them and supply them with weapons and munitions while he introduced their methods of terrorism and warfare to Central America. But hey, some folks think he had some cool economic policies and tax ideas.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shown by who?  The NYT did an investigation where they interviewed a lot of people who participated in that riot, and they said, "Um, yeah, we were really upset about that video that portrayed our holy prophet as a child molestor and animal abuser."
> 
> But in ODS land, it was all a vast conspiracy by Al Qaeda zombies and Obama lied!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "riot", you horses ass!  What happened in Benghazi was an attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists.  If the New York Times did an investigation and came up with the conclusion that you state they did, then what that proves is how "in the tank" they are for this Administration.  Something which shouldn't surprise anyone.  The Times used to have a reputation for journalistic excellence.  Now they have a reputation for liberal bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, whenever someone contradicts whatever shit you've heard on Faux News, they have a "liberal bias".
> 
> All those reports inother countries of riots and demonstrations against the film?  LIberal Bias.
> 
> Pointing out Obama called it an act of terror the next day when the Mormon said he didn't?
> 
> Liberal bias.
> 
> It must be nice to live in your own fact-free world where reality doesn't seep in.
Click to expand...


You continue to amuse, Joe...

The fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration *used* those reports about riots and demonstrations in other countries to conceal from the American people that a well planned attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists killed our Ambassador and torched our consulate.  The Obama Administration lied about Benghazi right from the start.  They knew what it was almost immediately and continued to blame the attack on a mob response to a You Tube video.  Why?  Because their campaign was running hard on the theme that Barry had Al Queda on the run after killing Osama bin Laden and they didn't want to admit that Al Queda wasn't as "on the run" as they had portrayed them.  The lies about Benghazi were all about politics.  This Administration made a calculated decision to lie about it because they felt they would receive enough cover from a compliant main stream media to pull it off until the election.

And Obama spoke "generally" about terrorism the day after the attacks...a reference that you Obama fluffers have tried to use to obscure the repeated lies and distortions of truth by Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice to paint what happened as a demonstration that got out of control...a demonstration over a video.  This was a planned and coordinated series of lies that went on for weeks.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?
> 
> Reagan?
> 
> _Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
> A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.
Click to expand...


You're amazing!  Seriously...

You not only make the statement that Reagan's policies towards the Soviets failed...you imply that what is happening today, because of the ineptitude of Barack Obama, is REALLY because the "old USSR" is still angry at Reagan!

The sheer audacity of that claim is breathtaking!  It's the kind of rewriting of history to support a political agenda that the folks running the "old USSR" would have employed!


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

This is a very short, but very intuitive and historically correct treatise on Reagan's dealings with the Soviets.  Anyone would do well to read it and learn from it.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan

Weakness breeds confrontation.  Carter was confronted by the Soviets (Afghanistan, Nicaragua and others) because they perceived him as weak and ineffective.  And he was.  Barry and his criminal cronies are also weak and ineffective.  This has rejuvenated feelings of a Soviet empire in Putin and emboldened him to seek to re-establish Russian dominance.  It will ONLY be checked if someone is elected to office who reflects Reagan's strength and view point.  If not, the destruction of America as a super power will certainly continue.

The OP was ludicrous and pure fantasy...


----------



## longly

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?
> 
> Reagan?
> 
> _Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
> A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.
Click to expand...


Here is the way it was:

1. We were in the Cold War. The communist wanted to establish a military base in central on the man land of North America. 

2. The Reagan administration saw this as disadvantageous to the US and the future of freedom and did all they could to resist it.   

3. Liberal democrats on the other hand did all they could to impede the ability of Reagan to oppose Soviet interest in Central America. Evidently the liberal Democrats saw a stronger Soviet Union as a good thing. They could never have too many slave labor camps.


----------



## Meathead

Oldstyle said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
> A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're amazing!  Seriously...
> 
> You not only make the statement that Reagan's policies towards the Soviets failed...you imply that what is happening today, because of the ineptitude of Barack Obama, is REALLY because the "old USSR" is still angry at Reagan!
> 
> The sheer audacity of that claim is breathtaking!  It's the kind of rewriting of history to support a political agenda that the folks running the "old USSR" would have employed!
Click to expand...

Agreed. Camp has outdone even himself in abject stupidity; no small feat.


----------



## Camp

longly said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
> A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the way it was:
> 
> 1. We were in the Cold War. The communist wanted to establish a military base in central on the man land of North America.
> 
> 2. The Reagan administration saw this as disadvantageous to the US and the future of freedom and did all they could to resist it.
> 
> 3. Liberal democrats on the other hand did all they could to impede the ability of Reagan to oppose Soviet interest in Central America. Evidently the liberal Democrats saw a stronger Soviet Union as a good thing. They could never have too many slave labor camps.
Click to expand...


Everyone knew the Contras were a bunch of gangster, terrorist, drug dealers and criminals. That is why the Bolin amendment(s) were passed in Congress which forbade giving support to the Contras. It did not forbid other means of making problems for the Nicaragua government, but it specificly made supporting those thugs and gangsters against the law. REAGAN KNEW THAT CONGRESS, WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DECLARE WAR OR FORBID IT HAD FORBIDDEN SUPPORT TO THE CONTRAS. He signed the amendment on 21 DEC 1982. He did not vetoe it and send it back. He signed it. Evidently enough Republicans in Congress and the President himself knew any effort to follow constitutional means to implement support to the Contras would fail.


----------



## Camp

OldUSAFSniper said:


> This is a very short, but very intuitive and historically correct treatise on Reagan's dealings with the Soviets.  Anyone would do well to read it and learn from it.
> 
> The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan
> 
> Weakness breeds confrontation.  Carter was confronted by the Soviets (Afghanistan, Nicaragua and others) because they perceived him as weak and ineffective.  And he was.  Barry and his criminal cronies are also weak and ineffective.  This has rejuvenated feelings of a Soviet empire in Putin and emboldened him to seek to re-establish Russian dominance.  It will ONLY be checked if someone is elected to office who reflects Reagan's strength and view point.  If not, the destruction of America as a super power will certainly continue.
> 
> The OP was ludicrous and pure fantasy...



Who was the President in August 2008 when Georgia and Ossetia where being invaded and annexed? Did that occur because of "weakness" shown by the President?

BTW, your link is interesting in that it points out that Reagan's real credit for his so called defeat of the USSR was based on his huge defense expenditures of our defense budget which overpowered the USSR economy as they tried to keep up. The link also points out how it drasticly increased our debt. One can easily use that link to show how any reduction in US defense spendeing could be seen as a temptation for the Russian's to feel confident about a reemergence of Russian global power.


----------



## Camp

Iceweasel said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering it is great. I remember it. I remember the middle class doing better than the Carter years too so you're full of shit. But you did prove my point.
Click to expand...


I did great financially in the 80's. It had nothing to do with who was President. Some people just learn to adapt and don't need to blame government or give credit to government for their success of failure. They just adapt and try to enjoy life. It is hard to enjoy life when the constant stench of death is in the air. Reagan gave us a constant stench of death during his regime. He refused to put an end to it. He allowed the death to continue till the end of his regime. That is when the students got knocked out of the sky over Lockerbie. He started his administration with an Embassy blowing up and a Marine Barracks being blown up. He ended it with a plane being blown up. In between those deaths were lots of incidents of murder and mayhem.


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering it is great. I remember it. I remember the middle class doing better than the Carter years too so you're full of shit. But you did prove my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did great financially in the 80's. It had nothing to do with who was President. Some people just learn to adapt and don't need to blame government or give credit to government for their success of failure. They just adapt and try to enjoy life. It is hard to enjoy life when the constant stench of death is in the air. Reagan gave us a constant stench of death during his regime. He refused to put an end to it. He allowed the death to continue till the end of his regime. That is when the students got knocked out of the sky over Lockerbie. He started his administration with an Embassy blowing up and a Marine Barracks being blown up. He ended it with a plane being blown up. In between those deaths were lots of incidents of murder and mayhem.
Click to expand...


Stench of death in the air?  Seriously?  Now I suppose, Reagan is the Specter of Death itself?  The Grim Reaper?  A combination of Pol Pot and Hannibal Lector with a little Satan thrown in for seasoning?  You need to step back and take a deep breath because this nonsense you're posting about Reagan is so over the top, it borders on farce.


----------



## Iceweasel

Camp said:


> I did great financially in the 80's. It had nothing to do with who was President. Some people just learn to adapt and don't need to blame government or give credit to government for their success of failure. They just adapt and try to enjoy life. It is hard to enjoy life when the constant stench of death is in the air. Reagan gave us a constant stench of death during his regime. He refused to put an end to it. He allowed the death to continue till the end of his regime. That is when the students got knocked out of the sky over Lockerbie. He started his administration with an Embassy blowing up and a Marine Barracks being blown up. He ended it with a plane being blown up. In between those deaths were lots of incidents of murder and mayhem.


So there was no such thing as Reaganomics and Obama isn't having an impact on us now? But the presidents are responsible for death? You're nuts. My business was almost exclusively working for other businesses so it wasn't just me I use as an example. Plus the stats I've seen confirm it and it's funny to hear liberals try to spin it, as if we should believe their opinions instead of our history.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?
> 
> Reagan?
> 
> _Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_



shore enough.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> longly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing. And no matter how much the Reagan economic policies are cheered and promoted, it will never override the massive corruption in his administration and the outright evilness of Iran/Contra. His horrendous policies and actions regarding terrorist attacks are still being felt today. His idea that the USSR could be bullied into submission failed. That failure can be seen today as the old USSR shows a grudge and the disatisfaction of having been bullied.
> A memorial for Reagan of the type erected to great Presidents will never be built in the nations capitol. Reagan fans hate the fact that Roosevelt was given a Memorial which was proudly built between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials, but there will never be space or overwhelming support for a Reagan Memorial. Each year that goes by adds to the negative feeling about Reagan and his legacy. In time he will be viewed as one of our worst Presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the way it was:
> 
> 1. We were in the Cold War. The communist wanted to establish a military base in central on the man land of North America.
> 
> 2. The Reagan administration saw this as disadvantageous to the US and the future of freedom and did all they could to resist it.
> 
> 3. Liberal democrats on the other hand did all they could to impede the ability of Reagan to oppose Soviet interest in Central America. Evidently the liberal Democrats saw a stronger Soviet Union as a good thing. They could never have too many slave labor camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone knew the Contras were a bunch of gangster, terrorist, drug dealers and criminals. That is why the Bolin amendment(s) were passed in Congress which forbade giving support to the Contras. It did not forbid other means of making problems for the Nicaragua government, but it specificly made supporting those thugs and gangsters against the law. REAGAN KNEW THAT CONGRESS, WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DECLARE WAR OR FORBID IT HAD FORBIDDEN SUPPORT TO THE CONTRAS. He signed the amendment on 21 DEC 1982. He did not vetoe it and send it back. He signed it. Evidently enough Republicans in Congress and the President himself knew any effort to follow constitutional means to implement support to the Contras would fail.
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note how this thread has become another  Benghazi debate?
> 
> Reagan?
> 
> _Quick change the subject because we KNOW they're right about him!_
> 
> 
> 
> Quick? This thread is how old? If you want to believe Reagan was wrong and we really didn't enjoy prosperity words are a waste of time.
Click to expand...


you all have failed miserably to disprove that reagan only helped the rich while betraying the middle class at tthe same time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering history is never a waste of time. Many folks believe making rich folks richer at the cost of the middle class and poor is not such a great thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering it is great. I remember it. I remember the middle class doing better than the Carter years too so you're full of shit. But you did prove my point.
Click to expand...


yep your full of shit alright.You remember it because you have been programmed by the lamestream media what they have told you over the year,while not listening to the real facts in the reports that were being said back then.

as always,yoy get your ass handed to you on a platter and are prove the one to be full of shit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=0

Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it

everytime I post this video you all never watch it-you all do this knowing your cornered-


you reagan worshippers only can come back with the pathetic line that rachel maddows lies ignoring the fact the videos doesnt just show her talking all the time,that it shows reporters back from the 80's reporting the FACTS how he betrayed the middle class which you would know if you ever took the time to watch the video instead of telling people they are full of shit and changing the topic to Obama evading facts about reagan.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> You continue to amuse, Joe...
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration *used* those reports about riots and demonstrations in other countries to conceal from the American people that a well planned attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists killed our Ambassador and torched our consulate.  The Obama Administration lied about Benghazi right from the start.  They knew what it was almost immediately and continued to blame the attack on a mob response to a You Tube video.  Why?  Because their campaign was running hard on the theme that Barry had Al Queda on the run after killing Osama bin Laden and they didn't want to admit that Al Queda wasn't as "on the run" as they had portrayed them.  The lies about Benghazi were all about politics.  This Administration made a calculated decision to lie about it because they felt they would receive enough cover from a compliant main stream media to pull it off until the election.
> 
> And Obama spoke "generally" about terrorism the day after the attacks...a reference that you Obama fluffers have tried to use to obscure the repeated lies and distortions of truth by Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice to paint what happened as a demonstration that got out of control...a demonstration over a video.  This was a planned and coordinated series of lies that went on for weeks.



Yes, i know that is the Faux News Narrative. 

The reality. A terrible thing happened, and the Weird Mormon Robot who bought you bitches tried to make a issue out of it. He got slapped down hard bcause it was fucking creepy.  

Obviously, being a Mormon, and not knowing what Creepy is, he tried again in the debates, and he got slapped down, hard, again.  

BUt, yeah, it really was about a video.  Sorry.


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


> you reagan worshippers only can come back with


Debt did go up under Reagan for reasons we discussed weeks ago. Try to keep up, Gomer.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You continue to amuse, Joe...
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Obama Administration *used* those reports about riots and demonstrations in other countries to conceal from the American people that a well planned attack by Al Queda affiliated terrorists killed our Ambassador and torched our consulate.  The Obama Administration lied about Benghazi right from the start.  They knew what it was almost immediately and continued to blame the attack on a mob response to a You Tube video.  Why?  Because their campaign was running hard on the theme that Barry had Al Queda on the run after killing Osama bin Laden and they didn't want to admit that Al Queda wasn't as "on the run" as they had portrayed them.  The lies about Benghazi were all about politics.  This Administration made a calculated decision to lie about it because they felt they would receive enough cover from a compliant main stream media to pull it off until the election.
> 
> And Obama spoke "generally" about terrorism the day after the attacks...a reference that you Obama fluffers have tried to use to obscure the repeated lies and distortions of truth by Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice to paint what happened as a demonstration that got out of control...a demonstration over a video.  This was a planned and coordinated series of lies that went on for weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i know that is the Faux News Narrative.
> 
> The reality. A terrible thing happened, and the Weird Mormon Robot who bought you bitches tried to make a issue out of it. He got slapped down hard bcause it was fucking creepy.
> 
> Obviously, being a Mormon, and not knowing what Creepy is, he tried again in the debates, and he got slapped down, hard, again.
> 
> BUt, yeah, it really was about a video.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


A terrible thing happened?  You make it sound like our Ambassador and three others were killed by a bolt of lightning or in a car crash.  They died because our consulate and annex were attacked by Al Queda terrorists...an attack that was made easier because Hilary Clinton decided that what we REALLY needed to do leading up to the anniversary of 9/11 was to remove part of Ambassador Steven's security detail even though it was becoming so dangerous in Libya that even the Red Cross had pulled out it's people!  Then to cover up her bad judgement and the total lack of a response by Barack Obama the Obama White House used protests in other cities over the You Tube video to portray what happened that night in Benghazi in a more "politically palatable" way.  They KNEW that there was no protest that escalated but they chose to lie to the families of the slain men and to the American people.

As for Romney?  He simply called Obama and Clinton out for what they had done in Benghazi...pointing out correctly that it wasn't a protest but a planned terrorist attack and that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney all lied to the country when they pushed the You Tube video story for weeks after they KNEW there was no protest before the attack took place!  The fact that Candy Crowley rushed to Barry's defense in the debate simply illustrates how biased in Obama's favor the main stream media WAS during the race!


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> 
> A terrible thing happened?  You make it sound like our Ambassador and three others were killed by a bolt of lightning or in a car crash.  They died because our consulate and annex were attacked by Al Queda terrorists...an attack that was made easier because Hilary Clinton decided that what we REALLY needed to do leading up to the anniversary of 9/11 was to remove part of Ambassador Steven's security detail even though it was becoming so dangerous in Libya that even the Red Cross had pulled out it's people!  Then to cover up her bad judgement and the total lack of a response by Barack Obama the Obama White House used protests in other cities over the You Tube video to portray what happened that night in Benghazi in a more "politically palatable" way.  They KNEW that there was no protest that escalated but they chose to lie to the families of the slain men and to the American people.
> 
> As for Romney?  He simply called Obama and Clinton out for what they had done in Benghazi...pointing out correctly that it wasn't a protest but a planned terrorist attack and that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney all lied to the country when they pushed the You Tube video story for weeks after they KNEW there was no protest before the attack took place!  The fact that Candy Crowley rushed to Barry's defense in the debate simply illustrates how biased in Obama's favor the main stream media WAS during the race!



You can call them "al Qaeda" all day, but interviews with people who where there said they wre upset about the video. 

Just like everyone else in the Islamic World was. 

But you guys keep going with this narrative that Obama is to blame and not the people who attacked the embassy, because honestly, when you suffer ODS to the level you do, you need to blame Obama for everything.  

I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.


I didn't realise you were as ignorant as your friend 9/11. I suppose you will believe that Bush ordered the attack.

We know that the Iraq War toppled one of your heroes, but a lot of people think this was a good thing. Get over it.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realise you were as ignorant as your friend 9/11. I suppose you will believe that Bush ordered the attack.
> 
> We know that the Iraq War toppled one of your heroes, but a lot of people think this was a good thing. Get over it.
Click to expand...


Actually, a lot of people think pretty much the oppossite. 

*The public soured on Iraq years ago but is now similarly downbeat about the war in Afghanistan, which President Obama once portrayed as the more worthwhile conflict. Some 58 percent of the poll's respondents say Iraq was not worth the fight; 56 percent say so about Afghanistan.*


----------



## theliq

Meathead said:


> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.



Poor Reagan,it was quite awful to watch a grown man being led around on an invisible tether by that Loony wife of his.

But I personally didn't mind the Guy,mind you I was living,like now in Paradise aka AUSTRALIA Great 1 Day,Brilliant the Next.

steve


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realise you were as ignorant as your friend 9/11. I suppose you will believe that Bush ordered the attack.
> 
> We know that the Iraq War toppled one of your heroes, but a lot of people think this was a good thing. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a lot of people think pretty much the oppossite.
> 
> *The public soured on Iraq years ago but is now similarly downbeat about the war in Afghanistan, which President Obama once portrayed as the more worthwhile conflict. Some 58 percent of the poll's respondents say Iraq was not worth the fight; 56 percent say so about Afghanistan.*
Click to expand...

A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.


----------



## editec

theliq said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan is the gift that keeps on giving.. His accomplishments annoy lefties to this day, 25 years after leaving office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Reagan,it was quite awful to watch a grown man being led around on an invisible tether by that Loony wife of his.
> 
> But I personally didn't mind the Guy,mind you I was living,like now in Paradise aka AUSTRALIA Great 1 Day,Brilliant the Next.
> 
> steve
Click to expand...


OZ is doing well right now much thanks to its natural resources exports to Asia.

_Good for ya'll._

Remember we live in a world were such economic advantage can change rather abruptly.

Plan accordingly.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realise you were as ignorant as your friend 9/11. I suppose you will believe that Bush ordered the attack.
> 
> We know that the Iraq War toppled one of your heroes, but a lot of people think this was a good thing. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a lot of people think pretty much the oppossite.
> 
> *The public soured on Iraq years ago but is now similarly downbeat about the war in Afghanistan, which President Obama once portrayed as the more worthwhile conflict. Some 58 percent of the poll's respondents say Iraq was not worth the fight; 56 percent say so about Afghanistan.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
Click to expand...


Saddam was captured 9 months after the war in Iraq began. The war began 20 March 2003 and Saddam was captured 21 December 2003. Casaulties at the time of his capture stood at coalition (not including US) 88 KIA and 486 US KIA. US KIA's increased by another 4,000 and and coalition KIA's increased another 230 after his capture. The loss of the additional 4,000 American KIA's and 230 allies had nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam or WMD's. Saddam was dead by the end of 2003 and the entire country had been fully searched for WMD's.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a lot of people think pretty much the oppossite.
> 
> *The public soured on Iraq years ago but is now similarly downbeat about the war in Afghanistan, which President Obama once portrayed as the more worthwhile conflict. Some 58 percent of the poll's respondents say Iraq was not worth the fight; 56 percent say so about Afghanistan.*
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam was captured 9 months after the war in Iraq began. The war began 20 March 2003 and Saddam was captured 21 December 2003. Casaulties at the time of his capture stood at coaoition (not including US) 88 KIA and 486 US KIA. *US KIA's increased by another 4,000 and* and coalition KIA's increased another 230 after his capture. The loss of *the additional 4,000 American KIA's *and 230 allies had nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam or WMD's. Saddam was dead by the end of 2003 and the entire country had been fully searched for WMD's.
Click to expand...

So? Is Saddam Hussein still running Iraq? Do you find it necessary, or even constructive for your argument to come up with convoluted stats, as those in bold?


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was captured 9 months after the war in Iraq began. The war began 20 March 2003 and Saddam was captured 21 December 2003. Casaulties at the time of his capture stood at coaoition (not including US) 88 KIA and 486 US KIA. *US KIA's increased by another 4,000 and* and coalition KIA's increased another 230 after his capture. The loss of *the additional 4,000 American KIA's *and 230 allies had nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam or WMD's. Saddam was dead by the end of 2003 and the entire country had been fully searched for WMD's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Is Saddam Hussein still running Iraq? Do you find it necessary, or even constructive for your argument to come up with convoluted stats, as those in bold?
Click to expand...


The point is often made and claimed to be that the war in Iraq was for the purpose of finding WMD's. Whether due to bad intelligence or whatever, without arguing the merits of that reason, it was put to rest in less than a year at a point in the war where some number less than 500 American military personel had given their lives to accomplish the mission of clearing Iraq of any WMD's. The same can be said for the reason given in regards to ridding Iraq of Saddam. 
It would seem fair and reasonable to point out that the war that followed the insuring of the clearing of WMD's and the capture of Saddam was waged for some other reasons. Folks who defend the Bush/Cheney/Rumfield neocon war should be able to explain what the war after 2003 was for. Seems reasonable to wonder why that additional 4,000 troops came home in boxes.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was captured 9 months after the war in Iraq began. The war began 20 March 2003 and Saddam was captured 21 December 2003. Casaulties at the time of his capture stood at coaoition (not including US) 88 KIA and 486 US KIA. *US KIA's increased by another 4,000 and* and coalition KIA's increased another 230 after his capture. The loss of *the additional 4,000 American KIA's *and 230 allies had nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam or WMD's. Saddam was dead by the end of 2003 and the entire country had been fully searched for WMD's.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Is Saddam Hussein still running Iraq? Do you find it necessary, or even constructive for your argument to come up with convoluted stats, as those in bold?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is often made and claimed to be that the war in Iraq was for the purpose of finding WMD's. Whether due to bad intelligence or whatever, without arguing the merits of that reason, it was put to rest in less than a year at a point in the war where some number less than 500 American military personel had given their lives to accomplish the mission of clearing Iraq of any WMD's. The same can be said for the reason given in regards to ridding Iraq of Saddam.
> It would seem fair and reasonable to point out that the war that followed the insuring of the clearing of WMD's and the capture of Saddam was waged for some other reasons. Folks who defend the Bush/Cheney/Rumfield neocon war should be able to explain what the war after 2003 was for. Seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

It was to get rid of Saddam and open the oil taps once again. Both were accomplished with relatively few casualties to US armed forces. Reagan on the other hand was far more successful. He helped topple communism with ZERO casualties!


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Is Saddam Hussein still running Iraq? Do you find it necessary, or even constructive for your argument to come up with convoluted stats, as those in bold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is often made and claimed to be that the war in Iraq was for the purpose of finding WMD's. Whether due to bad intelligence or whatever, without arguing the merits of that reason, it was put to rest in less than a year at a point in the war where some number less than 500 American military personel had given their lives to accomplish the mission of clearing Iraq of any WMD's. The same can be said for the reason given in regards to ridding Iraq of Saddam.
> It would seem fair and reasonable to point out that the war that followed the insuring of the clearing of WMD's and the capture of Saddam was waged for some other reasons. Folks who defend the Bush/Cheney/Rumfield neocon war should be able to explain what the war after 2003 was for. Seems reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was to get rid of Saddam and open the oil taps once again. Both were accomplished with relatively few casualties to US armed forces. Reagan on the other hand was far more successful. He helped topple communism with ZERO casualties!
Click to expand...


As has been pointed out, Saddam was gotten rid of less than a year after the war occured when the casaulty count was at 486 US KIA's.  Sounds like the additional 4,000 KIA's were worth it because the "oil taps got turned on once again". And 4,000 KIA's in your head are "relatively few causaulties". The Chinese thank your support for sacrificing American lives so they can reap the benifits of the "turned on taps". You know they get 80% of the oil Iraq sells, right. 
About that Reagan accomplishing the defeat of the USSR with zero casaulties, that kind of assumes you don't count the over 100,000 who gave their lives in Korea and Vietnam and all the "Cold War KIA's" not included in the Korea and Vietnam numbers. I know you will want to point out that all those dead Americans fighting the commies died before Reagan became President, but the USSR was still standing for years after Reagan left office. Maybe Reagan didn't have that much to do with the so called fall of the USSR?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> .
> 
> As for Romney?  He simply called Obama and Clinton out for what they had done in Benghazi...pointing out correctly that it wasn't a protest but a planned terrorist attack and that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney all lied to the country when they pushed the You Tube video story for weeks after they KNEW there was no protest before the attack took place!  The fact that Candy Crowley rushed to Barry's defense in the debate simply illustrates how biased in Obama's favor the main stream media WAS during the race!



You can call them "al Qaeda" all day, but interviews with people who where there said they wre upset about the video. 

Just like everyone else in the Islamic World was. 

But you guys keep going with this narrative that Obama is to blame and not the people who attacked the embassy, because honestly, when you suffer ODS to the level you do, you need to blame Obama for everything.  

I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.[/QUOTE]

that TROLLSYTLE for you,has no interest in pesky facts that wont go away that Bush knowingly invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 based on false pretences he knew was false. the sheople like trollsytyle,only see what they WANT to see.

i see you know the truth as well about obomination,that he is really barry sotoro,a former asset for the CIA.i would say from here on out,every president that the establishment puts in office-trollys like trollstyle and others just dont get it that we dont elect these people and put them in office, i would say from here on out,everyone of them will belinked to the CIA.Just look at the at the past four presidents as proof.1.Bush sr-former director of the CIA. 2.Bushs long time pal and friend Clinton.also has been exposed as a CIA asset.3.Bush jr.son of a former CIA director,that should be a red flag right there he doesnt have the american peoples interest at heart.4.Obama-reseachers have exposed him as being an asset to the CIA working for them in the pas as did Clinton.

expect the same ole same ole from here on out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realise you were as ignorant as your friend 9/11. I suppose you will believe that Bush ordered the attack.
> 
> We know that the Iraq War toppled one of your heroes, but a lot of people think this was a good thing. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, a lot of people think pretty much the oppossite.
> 
> *The public soured on Iraq years ago but is now similarly downbeat about the war in Afghanistan, which President Obama once portrayed as the more worthwhile conflict. Some 58 percent of the poll's respondents say Iraq was not worth the fight; 56 percent say so about Afghanistan.*
Click to expand...


pesky facts like that escape the ignorant tiny brain of the meathead,hense why his name is so appropriate. he''ll just claim those are made up facts by your of course or soemthing liek that and call YOU the ignorant one.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is often made and claimed to be that the war in Iraq was for the purpose of finding WMD's. Whether due to bad intelligence or whatever, without arguing the merits of that reason, it was put to rest in less than a year at a point in the war where some number less than 500 American military personel had given their lives to accomplish the mission of clearing Iraq of any WMD's. The same can be said for the reason given in regards to ridding Iraq of Saddam.
> It would seem fair and reasonable to point out that the war that followed the insuring of the clearing of WMD's and the capture of Saddam was waged for some other reasons. Folks who defend the Bush/Cheney/Rumfield neocon war should be able to explain what the war after 2003 was for. Seems reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> It was to get rid of Saddam and open the oil taps once again. Both were accomplished with relatively few casualties to US armed forces. Reagan on the other hand was far more successful. He helped topple communism with ZERO casualties!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has been pointed out, Saddam was gotten rid of less than a year after the war occured when the casaulty count was at 486 US KIA's.  Sounds like the additional 4,000 KIA's were worth it because the "oil taps got turned on once again". And 4,000 KIA's in your head are "relatively few causaulties". The Chinese thank your support for sacrificing American lives so they can reap the benifits of the "turned on taps". You know they get 80% of the oil Iraq sells, right.
> About that Reagan accomplishing the defeat of the USSR with zero casaulties, that kind of assumes you don't count the over 100,000 who gave their lives in Korea and Vietnam and all the "Cold War KIA's" not included in the Korea and Vietnam numbers. I know you will want to point out that all those dead Americans fighting the commies died before Reagan became President, but the USSR was still standing for years after Reagan left office. Maybe Reagan didn't have that much to do with the so called fall of the USSR?
Click to expand...


why do you bother trying to reason with a guy appropriately named MEATHEAD?

that meathead warped brain of his never remembers any pesky facts like that and ignores facts like all reagan worshippers that reagan delayed the collapse of the USSR by putting missles in europe long after Gorby wanted to edn the war,as well as ignoring pesky facts from the 80''s of polls taken back then showed a huge portion of americans credited gorbachev with the collapse of the USSR,as well as ignoring that reagan was in office long before Gorby became elected and had no success whatsoever of the collapse of the USSR 
despite all his anti communism speechs,that it wasnt till AFTER Gorby came into power years after reagan got elected,that because of his reforms he started initiating was what finally caused the collapse of the USSR.

they live in denial pretending none of that was true just like they pretend I never posted that previous video of  those people from the media back in the 80's reporting facts  on Reagans failed economics and how they betrayed the middle class familys,acting like i never post that video and acting like those reporters never said those words of course. constantly comong back here everyday for constant ass beatings on all of this.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.

See the difference?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As for Romney?  He simply called Obama and Clinton out for what they had done in Benghazi...pointing out correctly that it wasn't a protest but a planned terrorist attack and that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney all lied to the country when they pushed the You Tube video story for weeks after they KNEW there was no protest before the attack took place!  The fact that Candy Crowley rushed to Barry's defense in the debate simply illustrates how biased in Obama's favor the main stream media WAS during the race!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can call them "al Qaeda" all day, but interviews with people who where there said they wre upset about the video.
> 
> Just like everyone else in the Islamic World was.
> 
> But you guys keep going with this narrative that Obama is to blame and not the people who attacked the embassy, because honestly, when you suffer ODS to the level you do, you need to blame Obama for everything.
> 
> I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.
Click to expand...


that TROLLSYTLE for you,has no interest in pesky facts that wont go away that Bush knowingly invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 based on false pretences he knew was false. the sheople like trollsytyle,only see what they WANT to see.

i see you know the truth as well about obomination,that he is really barry sotoro,a former asset for the CIA.i would say from here on out,every president that the establishment puts in office-trollys like trollstyle and others just dont get it that we dont elect these people and put them in office, i would say from here on out,everyone of them will belinked to the CIA.Just look at the at the past four presidents as proof.1.Bush sr-former director of the CIA. 2.Bushs long time pal and friend Clinton.also has been exposed as a CIA asset.3.Bush jr.son of a former CIA director,that should be a red flag right there he doesnt have the american peoples interest at heart.4.Obama-reseachers have exposed him as being an asset to the CIA working for them in the pas as did Clinton.

expect the same ole same ole from here on out.[/QUOTE]

You believe it was about the video?

LOL

That's funny


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> [qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.



Okay, guy first, reagan had nothing to do with the end of the USSR. Only really stupid people think he did.  You won't find one historian outside a "talking snake" univerity that claims otherwise. 

Second, a lot of people look at the Iraq War not as "Saddam was a bad man", but what did getting rid of him cost us vs. what did we gain.  

It cost us nearly a trillion dollars, 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and the respect of most of the world.  

Our gains?  Well, we had to pull out because the only thing the various tribes of Iraq agreed upon was how much they hated us.  The Sunni Triangle is now a nest of Al Qaeda and the government in Baghdad is friendly to Iran.  

Not worth it.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
> 
> See the difference?



And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
Click to expand...


JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy first, reagan had nothing to do with the end of the USSR. Only really stupid people think he did.  You won't find one historian outside a "talking snake" univerity that claims otherwise.
> 
> Second, a lot of people look at the Iraq War not as "Saddam was a bad man", but what did getting rid of him cost us vs. what did we gain.
> 
> It cost us nearly a trillion dollars, 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and the respect of most of the world.
> 
> Our gains?  Well, we had to pull out because the only thing the various tribes of Iraq agreed upon was how much they hated us.  The Sunni Triangle is now a nest of Al Qaeda and the government in Baghdad is friendly to Iran.
> 
> Not worth it.
Click to expand...


I just spelled it out for him dummies style.He ignored it as you can see.the guy clearly has reading comprehension problems. remember you are trying to reason with someone on crack who is appropriaelty called MEATHEAD.you're not going to get anywhere,hense best thing to do with him is what i did several months ago,use the ignore list since that whats he does,ignores facts,


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
Click to expand...


pesky facts like that are a little too complicated for crusader retard to comprehend.


----------



## Camp

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pesky facts like that are a little too complicated for crusader retard to comprehend.
Click to expand...


The country was so pissed off and disgusted they ended up electing Roosevelt four times and Truman twice. They wouldn't elect a Republican again until we were deep in the Korean War and Eisenhower happened to be a Republican. The country wanted a General and war time leader. Note his VP was rejected for JFK.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Click to expand...


Lack of regulation of the banking industry. 

Guy, this is basic fucking history... 

But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
Click to expand...


ROFL says the mentally handicapped Marxist.


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL says the mentally handicapped Marxist.
Click to expand...


Um, yeah, guy, the problem is you can't really refute what was said.  

People were allowed to invest money they didn't have in stocks.  When the stock market corrected, they were on the hook for all that money.  The banks didn't have anything to reinvest. 

I mean, this is kind of what you guys don't get.  Because 1929 should have taught us a lesson that should have made 2008 impossible... 

But, nope, you guys just trotted out the same bad ideas.


----------



## theliq

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy first, reagan had nothing to do with the end of the USSR. Only really stupid people think he did.  You won't find one historian outside a "talking snake" univerity that claims otherwise.
> 
> Second, a lot of people look at the Iraq War not as "Saddam was a bad man", but what did getting rid of him cost us vs. what did we gain.
> 
> It cost us nearly a trillion dollars, 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and the respect of most of the world.
> 
> Our gains?  Well, we had to pull out because the only thing the various tribes of Iraq agreed upon was how much they hated us.  The Sunni Triangle is now a nest of Al Qaeda and the government in Baghdad is friendly to Iran.
> 
> Not worth it.
Click to expand...


As a footnote to your prose Joe,Saddam NEVER allowed Al Qaeda anywhere near Iraq he hated them more than you Guys did.......In this he was right. Anyhow the WAR was Bullshit from start to finish......the REAL CRIME HERE is the number of US(and others) Service Men and Women....KIA and MAIMED FOR LIFE but no doubt Bush,Rumsfeld and their cronies are happy sipping their Whisky and Rye today..........not giving a stuff about THE WIDOWS,CHILDREN and FAMILIES mourning their LOVE ONES may they R.I.P.steve


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolidge had a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democrat Congress.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pesky facts like that are a little too complicated for crusader retard to comprehend.
Click to expand...


Which Coolidge policies caused the collapse Mr Disinformation Agent

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
Click to expand...


LOL...the Stalin worshiper is going to teach us about silent Cal. Cal and your god Stalin are like Jesus and Satan and in that order too

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Traditionalist

Reagan was a great President because he made conservatism clear, easy to understand, and most importantly, combined shrewd politics with strong principles and concrete achievements.

He was a visionary and ahead of his time. He predicted the fall of Communism long before it happened. And he also warned of the dangers to traditional values and self- government that the emerging modern liberal bureaucracy embodied.  Sure, he wasn't perfect, but who is? Reagan was quite effective, particularly in foreign policy and on many domestic economic issues.

The man may be more myth now, but he was the leader America needed at the time.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> A terrible thing happened?  You make it sound like our Ambassador and three others were killed by a bolt of lightning or in a car crash.  They died because our consulate and annex were attacked by Al Queda terrorists...an attack that was made easier because Hilary Clinton decided that what we REALLY needed to do leading up to the anniversary of 9/11 was to remove part of Ambassador Steven's security detail even though it was becoming so dangerous in Libya that even the Red Cross had pulled out it's people!  Then to cover up her bad judgement and the total lack of a response by Barack Obama the Obama White House used protests in other cities over the You Tube video to portray what happened that night in Benghazi in a more "politically palatable" way.  They KNEW that there was no protest that escalated but they chose to lie to the families of the slain men and to the American people.
> 
> As for Romney?  He simply called Obama and Clinton out for what they had done in Benghazi...pointing out correctly that it wasn't a protest but a planned terrorist attack and that Obama, Clinton, Rice and Carney all lied to the country when they pushed the You Tube video story for weeks after they KNEW there was no protest before the attack took place!  The fact that Candy Crowley rushed to Barry's defense in the debate simply illustrates how biased in Obama's favor the main stream media WAS during the race!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can call them "al Qaeda" all day, but interviews with people who where there said they wre upset about the video.
> 
> Just like everyone else in the Islamic World was.
> 
> But you guys keep going with this narrative that Obama is to blame and not the people who attacked the embassy, because honestly, when you suffer ODS to the level you do, you need to blame Obama for everything.
> 
> I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.
Click to expand...


Interviews with the people who attacked the consulate?  What the hell are you blathering about, Joe?  You're now claiming that the attackers said that they were upset about the You Tube video?  You get more absurd with each passing day...

Obama is totally to blame for lying to the American people about what happened in Benghazi.  He lied because he didn't want to admit that he DIDN'T have Al Queda on the run just days after he stood on stage at the Democratic National Convention and said that he DID have them on the run!

As for Bush being to blame for 9/11?  Dude, are you really not aware that 9/11 was being planned LONG before George W. Bush even became President!  The very same thing would have happened if Al Gore had been elected.  Duh?


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL says the mentally handicapped Marxist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, the problem is you can't really refute what was said.
> 
> People were allowed to invest money they didn't have in stocks.  When the stock market corrected, they were on the hook for all that money.  The banks didn't have anything to reinvest.
> 
> I mean, this is kind of what you guys don't get.  Because 1929 should have taught us a lesson that should have made 2008 impossible...
> 
> But, nope, you guys just trotted out the same bad ideas.
Click to expand...


The collapse in 2008 was centered around a real estate bubble and the tens of thousands of "liar loans" that were written, bundled and sold to financial institutions.  It wasn't because people were investing money they didn't have in stocks.  If you'll recall it was George W. Bush warning that we needed to do something about the looming problem in the real estate market and Democrats that pooh poohed his concerns.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...the Stalin worshiper is going to teach us about silent Cal. Cal and your god Stalin are like Jesus and Satan and in that order too
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
Click to expand...


Guy, most historians rate Coolidge down there with Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan amongst the worst presidents. 

But, shit, those guys are all "commies' because they think we should feed poor people and shit.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> Interviews with the people who attacked the consulate?  What the hell are you blathering about, Joe?  You're now claiming that the attackers said that they were upset about the You Tube video?  You get more absurd with each passing day...
> 
> Obama is totally to blame for lying to the American people about what happened in Benghazi.  He lied because he didn't want to admit that he DIDN'T have Al Queda on the run just days after he stood on stage at the Democratic National Convention and said that he DID have them on the run!
> 
> As for Bush being to blame for 9/11?  Dude, are you really not aware that 9/11 was being planned LONG before George W. Bush even became President!  The very same thing would have happened if Al Gore had been elected.  Duh?



Couple points, Dog Style.  

1) The NYT actually investigated, interviewing people who were there.  Yup, they were really upset about the Video. Deal with it. 

2) Obama called it an "Act of Terror" when it happened.  and sorry, any sensible person realizes we are killing far more of Al Qaeda than they are killing us these days. (Unlike the Bush days, where we fumbled around attacking the wrong countries.) 

3) Bush was given a CIA Breifing that said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US". Oh, yeah, and it even talked about Airplanes.  Bush's response.  "Well, you've covered your ass." and then he went fishing.  

NOw, had we actually had an honest election, I don't think Al Gore would have gone fishing.


----------



## JoeB131

Oldstyle said:


> [
> 
> The collapse in 2008 was centered around a real estate bubble and the tens of thousands of "liar loans" that were written, bundled and sold to financial institutions.  It wasn't because people were investing money they didn't have in stocks.  If you'll recall it was George W. Bush warning that we needed to do something about the looming problem in the real estate market and Democrats that pooh poohed his concerns.



Bush also claimed that increased home ownership amongst minorities was the greatest accomplishment of his failed presidency. 

Flashback: George W. Bush Praising Fannie and Freddie, and Home Ownership For Those With ?Bad Credit Histories? | Liberaland



> Republicans love to beat up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and blame Democrats for pushing home ownership for those who may not have the means to pay off their debts. Here, from 2002, is President George W. Bush, saying Freddie is dismantling barriers to help more people have home ownership,  how deserving families who have bad credit histories can own homes, and that  the low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.



Ooops.  

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse | Crooks and Liars



> There was a reason the GOP kept Bush off the airwaves until after the midterm elections: the man was so reviled. I wouldn't doubt that Roger Ailes had something to do with it, but that's just a theory. Anyway, the one and only panel I did with Andrew Breitbart was revolting for many reasons, but one of the biggest lies he told and is one often repeated by the zombies of the Tea Party (which took off after Rick Santelli gave them permission to do so on CNBC) -- namely, that the greedy poor people created the mortgage meltdown because they had the audacity to become homeowners. Krugman explains away that nonsense and Digby reminded me again of Bush's 2004 acceptance speech, where he bragged about his economic handiwork, and begged to turn America into the ultimate "homeowner society."



Of course, after the meltdown, Bush was the piano player at the whorehouse who had no idea what was going on upstairs.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Of course, after the meltdown, Bush was the piano player at the whorehouse who had no idea what was going on upstairs.


You've likely had so many meltdowns, it is hard to understand which. I suppose the upstairs of the whorehouse is metaphorical for your mind, so at least I'm assuming this meltdown was during his administrations.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## Oldstyle

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Interviews with the people who attacked the consulate?  What the hell are you blathering about, Joe?  You're now claiming that the attackers said that they were upset about the You Tube video?  You get more absurd with each passing day...
> 
> Obama is totally to blame for lying to the American people about what happened in Benghazi.  He lied because he didn't want to admit that he DIDN'T have Al Queda on the run just days after he stood on stage at the Democratic National Convention and said that he DID have them on the run!
> 
> As for Bush being to blame for 9/11?  Dude, are you really not aware that 9/11 was being planned LONG before George W. Bush even became President!  The very same thing would have happened if Al Gore had been elected.  Duh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couple points, Dog Style.
> 
> 1) The NYT actually investigated, interviewing people who were there.  Yup, they were really upset about the Video. Deal with it.
> 
> 2) Obama called it an "Act of Terror" when it happened.  and sorry, any sensible person realizes we are killing far more of Al Qaeda than they are killing us these days. (Unlike the Bush days, where we fumbled around attacking the wrong countries.)
> 
> 3) Bush was given a CIA Breifing that said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US". Oh, yeah, and it even talked about Airplanes.  Bush's response.  "Well, you've covered your ass." and then he went fishing.
> 
> NOw, had we actually had an honest election, I don't think Al Gore would have gone fishing.
Click to expand...


Your "points" are amusing, Joe!

What the New York Times proved without a shadow of a doubt is how willing they are to go along with any narrative that the Obama White House puts out.  Those terrorists that attacked our consulate and annex were not there because they were upset over an obscure You Tube video.  The Times should be embarrassed that they let themselves be used by the White House in such a fashion.  They no longer have a reputation for great journalism because of things like this.

As for 2?  The following from the Washington Post sums it up nicely:

Obama?s claim he called Benghazi an ?act of terrorism? - The Washington Post

Number 3?  Bush was given briefings about various perceived terror threats on a daily basis.  Saying that he dropped the ball because he didn't act on a report that Osama bin Laden was looking to strike the US is ludicrous.  And to make the point that Al Gore would have somehow seen that report and jumped up to go "Aha!  THAT'S the thing we need to be worried about!" is nothing more than a fantasy on your part.  The report about OBL and a possible attack on the US was simply one needle in a haystack of reports of possible terror attacks.  What's even more laughable is that you chastise Bush for "going fishing" after not recognizing the importance of an obscure briefing but don't seem to have a problem with Obama getting on a plane and flying off to Vegas to do a fundraiser the very day that he learned our consulate had been attacked and our Ambassador and three others were murdered.  No hypocrisy *THERE*, Joe!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And less than a year after he left office, the world economy collaped, much of the world turned to totalitarianism, and the Democratic Party pretty much swept the GOP out of existence for a generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefBStalin which Coolidge policy caused the collapse
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
Click to expand...


you're just NOW coming to that  conclusion on that well known fact  about Crusader Retard?  very few people dont figure that out about him after a few posts.

and trollstyle just farted as well recently.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

theliq said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy first, reagan had nothing to do with the end of the USSR. Only really stupid people think he did.  You won't find one historian outside a "talking snake" univerity that claims otherwise.
> 
> Second, a lot of people look at the Iraq War not as "Saddam was a bad man", but what did getting rid of him cost us vs. what did we gain.
> 
> It cost us nearly a trillion dollars, 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and the respect of most of the world.
> 
> Our gains?  Well, we had to pull out because the only thing the various tribes of Iraq agreed upon was how much they hated us.  The Sunni Triangle is now a nest of Al Qaeda and the government in Baghdad is friendly to Iran.
> 
> Not worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a footnote to your prose Joe,Saddam NEVER allowed Al Qaeda anywhere near Iraq he hated them more than you Guys did.......In this he was right. Anyhow the WAR was Bullshit from start to finish......the REAL CRIME HERE is the number of US(and others) Service Men and Women....KIA and MAIMED FOR LIFE but no doubt Bush,Rumsfeld and their cronies are happy sipping their Whisky and Rye today..........not giving a stuff about THE WIDOWS,CHILDREN and FAMILIES mourning their LOVE ONES may they R.I.P.steve
Click to expand...


and of course Bushs buddy Obama is letting him and their administration get away with being mass murderers of women and children and our american boys as well.thats why out two party system is such a joke.The other party never prosecutes the previous administrations crimes they committed previously while they were in office and thats because its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected,hense why the appropraite name for their parties should be demopublican and reprocrat.

there is no hope for the future of miss america as long as we have this one party system we have.we need an independent party president to represent the people instead of the bankers,the last president we had that tried to do that paid the price for it on nov 22nd 1963.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...the Stalin worshiper is going to teach us about silent Cal. Cal and your god Stalin are like Jesus and Satan and in that order too
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians rate Coolidge down there with Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan amongst the worst presidents.
> 
> But, shit, those guys are all "commies' because they think we should feed poor people and shit.
Click to expand...


Ahh OK as I suspected you're totally fucking ignorant 

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...the Stalin worshiper is going to teach us about silent Cal. Cal and your god Stalin are like Jesus and Satan and in that order too
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians rate Coolidge down there with Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan amongst the worst presidents.
> 
> But, shit, those guys are all "commies' because they think we should feed poor people and shit.
Click to expand...


actually Coolidge was the last GREAT republican president we had.Unlike that fuckhead evil bastard Reagan,he actually followed the constitution,did not serve the bankers,and wasnt a mass murderer who funded terrorist groups. He was the last republican president we had who followed the constitution and someone farted in here just before  this last post of mine.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of regulation of the banking industry.
> 
> Guy, this is basic fucking history...
> 
> But frankly, I'm starting to suspect you are clinically retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...the Stalin worshiper is going to teach us about silent Cal. Cal and your god Stalin are like Jesus and Satan and in that order too
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians rate Coolidge down there with Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan amongst the worst presidents.
> 
> But, shit, those guys are all "commies' because they think we should feed poor people and shit.
Click to expand...


We think you're a commie because you are

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The collapse in 2008 was centered around a real estate bubble and the tens of thousands of "liar loans" that were written, bundled and sold to financial institutions.  It wasn't because people were investing money they didn't have in stocks.  If you'll recall it was George W. Bush warning that we needed to do something about the looming problem in the real estate market and Democrats that pooh poohed his concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush also claimed that increased home ownership amongst minorities was the greatest accomplishment of his failed presidency.
> 
> Flashback: George W. Bush Praising Fannie and Freddie, and Home Ownership For Those With ?Bad Credit Histories? | Liberaland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans love to beat up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and blame Democrats for pushing home ownership for those who may not have the means to pay off their debts. Here, from 2002, is President George W. Bush, saying Freddie is dismantling barriers to help more people have home ownership,  how deserving families who have bad credit histories can own homes, and that  the low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooops.
> 
> Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse | Crooks and Liars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a reason the GOP kept Bush off the airwaves until after the midterm elections: the man was so reviled. I wouldn't doubt that Roger Ailes had something to do with it, but that's just a theory. Anyway, the one and only panel I did with Andrew Breitbart was revolting for many reasons, but one of the biggest lies he told and is one often repeated by the zombies of the Tea Party (which took off after Rick Santelli gave them permission to do so on CNBC) -- namely, that the greedy poor people created the mortgage meltdown because they had the audacity to become homeowners. Krugman explains away that nonsense and Digby reminded me again of Bush's 2004 acceptance speech, where he bragged about his economic handiwork, and begged to turn America into the ultimate "homeowner society."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, after the meltdown, Bush was the piano player at the whorehouse who had no idea what was going on upstairs.
Click to expand...


which his buddy Obomination has expanded upon of course.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...the Stalin worshiper is going to teach us about silent Cal. Cal and your god Stalin are like Jesus and Satan and in that order too
> 
> Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, most historians rate Coolidge down there with Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan amongst the worst presidents.
> 
> But, shit, those guys are all "commies' because they think we should feed poor people and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually Coolidge was the last GREAT republican president we had.Unlike that fuckhead evil bastard Reagan,he actually followed the constitution,did not serve the bankers,and wasnt a mass murderer who funded terrorist groups. He was the last republican president we had who followed the constitution and someone farted in here just before  this last post of mine.
Click to expand...


In fact this is WHY Calvin Coolidge was indeed the last GREAT republican president we had.Why Reagan cant carry his jockstrap.this poster here did their homework unlike the reagan worshippers.


Isn't it true that Calvin Coolidge was the BEST President we've ever had? Isn't Ron Paul a lot like Coolidge? 





Calvin Coolidge was a great President and a great American. I think he is definitely the best President we've ever had. 

1. He supported a TRUE free market economy (unlike today's Republicans). That meant NO corporate welfare. NO Federal subsidies to businesses. NO government bailouts for ANY businesses. He believed in absolute free market competition. 

2. The nation was economically prosperous during Coolidge's administration. The Roaring 20's were a time of economic expansion. No other era in our history can compare to the economic growth and prosperity America had during this time. 

3. Coolidge slashed income taxes and federal spending SUBSTANTIALLY to the point where the vast majority of Americans didn't have to pay ANY federal income taxes. Coolidge once famously stated: "I want the people of America to be able to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want them to have the rewards of their own industry. That is the chief meaning of freedom. " 

4. Coolidge believed in civil liberties and equal rights for ALL Americans. Most notably, he supported FULL equal rights for Blacks and Native Americans during a time when many politicians were very racist and bigoted. His attempts at securing equal rights for these groups were often obstructed or stopped by racist white trash Dixiecrats. 

5. Coolidge was a strict constitutionalist who once stated that "Opinions and instructions do not outmatch the Constitution." 

Wasn't Coolidge the BEST President we've ever had? Aren't Ron Paul's policies very close to those of Coolidge? 

THAT folks is why Coolidge was the LAST "GREAT" republican president we ever had.Thats also why the establishment made sure Ron Paul did not get elected is because just like this poster said,he had a lot of the same ideas that the great Calvin Coolidge had.

MORE facts about the great Calvin Coolidge below.this is for everyone except the reagan worshippers of course since they wont read any of this since  as they have proven in spades throughout this entire thread,they deny reality and never watch or read anything that debunks their myths.

righteousjohnson answered 2 years ago


 Coolidge was very good and is still very much underrated. 
He also made a great speech celebrating (at the time) the 150th anniversary of the U.S. in which he chastised the Progressive movement as being anything but. He did an awesome job of laying out the argument that Progressives actually are just the post-industrial manifestation of Monarchists. The only difference being that whereas Kings claimed their authority came from God, Progressives claimed that their right to lead stems from superior intellect, compassion, and expertise. Either way, the end result to us, the 'little people', would be the same. Elitism has a Genesis. 
I encourage you to find a transcript of that speech. Can't believe it was like 85 years ago. 


 Coolidge is very underrated. He believed in individual liberty and freedom, which, to this day, is still an unpopular philosophy to many people. Statists hate personal freedoms and increased individual liberties. No wonder they hate him and Ron Paul so much.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

THOSE facts being said,he was EASILY by leaps and bounds,the best REPUBLICAN president we ever had in the 19th century by leaps and bounds.Hands down,no contest.

especially economically wise and constitutionally.

these days you cant have a president like that.the last one that TRIED to be like him and serve the people instead of the bankers,paid the price for it on nov 22d 1963.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Coolidge of course wasnt any of these things that Reagan was either that all the reagannut worshippers ignore everyime its posted denying the REALITY its all true.


Liar 
&#8226;Thief 
&#8226;Mass murderer 
&#8226;Supporter of abortion 
&#8226;War criminal 
&#8226; 
&#8226; 

&#8226;Destroyer of freedom 
&#8226;Traitor of the American people 
&#8226;Corporate whore 
&#8226;Destroyer of the environment

http://www.highstrangeness.tv/articles/reagan.php


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> [qu]A lot of people think overthrowing Saddam was a bad thing?! Joe, I know you do. I also know you hate Reagan for his significant contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union. You side with Putin here, but few would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy first, reagan had nothing to do with the end of the USSR. Only really stupid people think he did.  You won't find one historian outside a "talking snake" univerity that claims otherwise.
> 
> Second, a lot of people look at the Iraq War not as "Saddam was a bad man", but what did getting rid of him cost us vs. what did we gain.
> 
> It cost us nearly a trillion dollars, 5000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and the respect of most of the world.
> 
> Our gains?  Well, we had to pull out because the only thing the various tribes of Iraq agreed upon was how much they hated us.  The Sunni Triangle is now a nest of Al Qaeda and the government in Baghdad is friendly to Iran.
> 
> Not worth it.
Click to expand...


liek i said,there is a REASON why he is called meathead.the crack he smokes has ruined his brain.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

OldUSAFSniper said:


> This is a very short, but very intuitive and historically correct treatise on Reagan's dealings with the Soviets.  Anyone would do well to read it and learn from it.
> 
> The Collapse of the Soviet Union and Ronald Reagan
> 
> Weakness breeds confrontation.  Carter was confronted by the Soviets (Afghanistan, Nicaragua and others) because they perceived him as weak and ineffective.  And he was.  Barry and his criminal cronies are also weak and ineffective.  This has rejuvenated feelings of a Soviet empire in Putin and emboldened him to seek to re-establish Russian dominance.  It will ONLY be checked if someone is elected to office who reflects Reagan's strength and view point.  If not, the destruction of America as a super power will certainly continue.
> 
> The OP was ludicrous and pure fantasy...



thats actually INCORRECT.if you check the facts,Reagan was president LONGGGGGGG before Gorby came to power.He gave many anti communism speechs but nothing ever occured in that timeframe in russia towards the collapse of the USSR before Gorby came into power.

it wasnt until long AFTER Gorby came into power,that Gorby started making reforms to the state of russia that ended the collapse of the USSR and as i said earlier,polls showed back then from americans that a great majority of them were aware that It was gorbachev who ended communism and was given the majority of the credit by them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Notice the hatred for Reagan who took a bullet from the establishment but the strange quiet from the CIA disinformation specialist when it comes to discussing their mentor and patron saint George HW New World Order Bush

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

so yeah,if you like a mass murderer of millions of innocent women and children around the world,reagan is your man.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, after the meltdown, Bush was the piano player at the whorehouse who had no idea what was going on upstairs.
> 
> 
> 
> You've likely had so many meltdowns, it is hard to understand which. I suppose the upstairs of the whorehouse is metaphorical for your mind, so at least I'm assuming this meltdown was during his administrations.
Click to expand...


Corky, did you totally miss the point?  

I mean, seriously, do you work at being this stupid? 

Bush was the guy who was for deregulating the banks, defanging the SEC and encouraging as many people to buy houses as he could- even though who probably weren't ready for home ownership. 

And big surprise, it all melted down quickly.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Here are the facts that the reagan  nut worshippers cant handle.this poster asked this question and I will number the replies which are ALL true.

NUMBER ONE,the FIRST reply is the MOST important of them all-"even though the other ones are all interesting as well". because it tells the TRUTH how the economy was much worse under Reagan than it ever was under Carter.

When did outsourcing jobs to foreign countries begin? 

Posters claim the policies of Obama has lead to companies outsourcing jobs, this has been going on long before Obama even thought about running for president!

HERE IT IS REAGANUT WORSHIPPERS.you can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls you are.
left to do just this. remember these arent MY words below.just the facts from someone else.

1.The Con posters here seem to forget it started long ago, it picked up steam during Bush II's administration, a Republican, a Conservative. 

The corporations are traitors, plain and simple. Taking jobs to COMMUNIST countries, over keeping jobs in America! 


under Reagan..before that it wasnt worth it to ship jobs overseas because of our tariffs on goods coming in 

Reagan reversed that.. under Carter our trade deficit was less than 10 million dollars, under Reagan it increased tens of billions of dollars...and the side effect is that it exposed our workers to have to compete for jobs with people in 3rd world countries making pennies a day





2.It has been going on a long time, Perot, warned us of the "great sucking sound" if NAFTA was passed, he was right! 

Cliinton signed it, but only because the Federal Reserve Chairman threatened to raise interest rates if he didn't.

3. SECOND BEST ANSWER.

Alan Turing answered 2 years ago


 I first noticed it during the Reagan administration. 

His post backs up what the first poster posted.

Alan remembers correctly.

4.
 Free Trade 

 They force Clinton into some signing further. Then the Republicans went crazy making that money and taking jobs from the poor. 



5. The biggest push was when Clinton passed NAFTA and then made China the most favored trade nation. You could hear the jobs screaming across the borders... as for Obama, when you tell corporations what benefits you have to provide for your employees, then corporations will find countries that won't require high priced overheads.

6.

BUT Yes, it picked up steam in Bush's term, But it REALLY picked up stem in Clinton's term, when China was given "most favored nation" status, and "NAFTA" became the way of the future. 

So, yes, it grew under Bush, because of what CLINTON (a liberal, a DEMONcrat) Did. 




 I began noticing it when Lee Iacocca needed help bailing out Chrysler and came out with the K-car. Most of the engines were outsourced to Japan. 

It became more noticeable after Clinton signed NAFTA. That's basically when things began going bonkers. 



http://www.brighthub.com/office/human-re...


6. Clinton spent his first 4 yrs getting NAFTA passed , then increased USA corporate taxes , increased EPA regulation and then made China the most favored trade nation. 

I remeber this well, because it was then when Bill Clinton got NAFTA passed that they started making plans to move first to Mexico and then later China ,at that time the USA made the most TV sets in the world ,,,,now China does 50,000 workers were laid off in the USA and HIRED IN CHINA , due only to the free trade of NAFTA and a simular bill for China 
People say its the wages ,but this is false the plant is all automated , the only labor is programmers , so its the taxes , that make the move PAY , as for traitors , well they TOLD the government if taxes were not reduced to the level of China's , stockholders were demanding more return on investment , and the management would need to move to China ,,, the USA government said screw you ,,, so they left for China ,,,,who welcomed the largest TV plant in the world , with open arms 
SO ITS THE USA FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHO IS THE TRAITORS , not the companies who are driven by the demands of stockholdes,,,,,and yes in china they make 40% more money for the stockholders who are all retired persons from around the earth who all purchased stock on the NASDAQ exchange , which anyone else can as well , the stock symbol for this company is PHG 
Simce they are now in China all the stockholders are doing great , and thanks to Bill Clinton all product made in China can be sold in the USA without tariff ,,,,hey thanks Bill and Hillary , you F'ing 
sell outs and YES policies of Obama follow those of the Clintons 

Source(s):

 Clinton supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he signed into law in 1994 
from Presidency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia... 

.....Every year since the beginning of NAFTA, China's surplus with the U.S. has risen tremendously 

.... In 2007 alone, China had a $256,000,000,000 surplus with the U.S. 
surplus means we buy more from china than ,they from the USA 
In 2007 alone, China had a $256,000,000,000 surplus with the U.S. 

web page http://www.madeinamericaproject.com/NAFT...


----------



## editec

For those of you who are more interested in the TRUTH about trade and deficeits than scoring stupid PARTISAN point?

Here's the REAL numbers from 1790 to present

Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006

What does this show us?

It shows us that our trade imbalances really started around 1970 and were accelerated thanks to our trade policies by EVER POTUS SINCE NIXXON!


----------



## JoeB131

editec said:


> For those of you who are more interested in the TRUTH about trade and deficeits than scoring stupid PARTISAN point?
> 
> Here's the REAL numbers from 1790 to present
> 
> Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006
> 
> What does this show us?
> 
> It shows us that our trade imbalances really started around 1970 and were accelerated thanks to our trade policies by EVER POTUS SINCE NIXXON!



That's a good point, but there's more to the story than that. 

First and formost, the 1970's is when the Germans and Japanese caught up to us in manufacturing.  While they rebuilt most of their industry after the war, a lot of our companies were still working with old equipment.  

Second, a large part of the trade deficits after 1974 or so were because OPEC realized the value of oil and learned how to use it as a political weapon.


----------



## Iceweasel

editec said:


> For those of you who are more interested in the TRUTH about trade and deficeits than scoring stupid PARTISAN point?
> 
> Here's the REAL numbers from 1790 to present
> 
> Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006
> 
> What does this show us?
> 
> It shows us that our trade imbalances really started around 1970 and were accelerated thanks to our trade policies by EVER POTUS SINCE NIXXON!


The Reagan haters could not care less about facts. That isn't their goal.


----------



## hunarcy

JoeB131 said:


> You can call them "al Qaeda" all day, but interviews with people who where there said they wre upset about the video.
> 
> Just like everyone else in the Islamic World was.
> 
> But you guys keep going with this narrative that Obama is to blame and not the people who attacked the embassy, because honestly, when you suffer ODS to the level you do, you need to blame Obama for everything.
> 
> I'm still amused that you still hold Bush blameless for 9/11 or the 4500 men who died for nothing in Iraq, but darn it, these four deaths in Libya, these are the WORST THING EVER.



Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality | PolitiFact

According to politifact, you're lying again, weaseltroll.


----------



## hunarcy

JoeB131 said:


> Bush was the guy who was for deregulating the banks, defanging the SEC and encouraging as many people to buy houses as he could- even though who probably weren't ready for home ownership.



Once again, the truth is not your friend.  Bush pushed early on for tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Congress failed to move on it. And after the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act.   So, you're caught lying YET AGAIN!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Iceweasel said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who are more interested in the TRUTH about trade and deficeits than scoring stupid PARTISAN point?
> 
> Here's the REAL numbers from 1790 to present
> 
> Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006
> 
> What does this show us?
> 
> It shows us that our trade imbalances really started around 1970 and were accelerated thanks to our trade policies by EVER POTUS SINCE NIXXON!
> 
> 
> 
> The Reagan haters could not care less about facts. That isn't their goal.
Click to expand...


fucking hypocrite LIAR,you REAGANUT TROllS are the ones that dont care about FACTS.we arent the ones that change the subject talking about Obamas corruption when cornered with facts about how reagan betrayed americans refusing to comment on links and or watch videos and talk about the information in them.we address them,you all chickenshit cowards run off with your tail betweeen your legs when you know you are cornered. you all REFUSE to talk about ANY of the facts we have all posted,you all CONSTANTLY evaded them switching the subject talking about Obamas corruoption instead.

thats how you disinfo agents operate.pathetic.we dont go and change the subject talking about a different presidnet like you reaganut trolls do.you know it,we know troll.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

editec said:


> For those of you who are more interested in the TRUTH about trade and deficeits than scoring stupid PARTISAN point?
> 
> Here's the REAL numbers from 1790 to present
> 
> Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006
> 
> What does this show us?
> 
> It shows us that our trade imbalances really started around 1970 and were accelerated thanks to our trade policies by EVER POTUS SINCE NIXXON!



I noticed that true to form,when you cornered them with these facts,they turned tail and ran true to form and ran off only able to sling insults like the monkey trolls they are knowing they were defeated. like clockwork.never fails.

I always get a kick out of how they NEVER have any answers for these facts below on the TRUE Reagan.They always do the same thing with me when cornered by this link that they did to you.knowing they are cornerd and cant counter these facts,they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.

Ronald Reagan: Guilty of Treason & War Crimes

Let us remember Reagan as he really was...

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
War criminal 
Traitor 
Destroyer of freedom 
Destroyer of the environment 
Corporate whore 
Supporter of satanists and child murderers 
Idiot, moron


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who are more interested in the TRUTH about trade and deficeits than scoring stupid PARTISAN point?
> 
> Here's the REAL numbers from 1790 to present
> 
> Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006
> 
> What does this show us?
> 
> It shows us that our trade imbalances really started around 1970 and were accelerated thanks to our trade policies by EVER POTUS SINCE NIXXON!
> 
> 
> 
> The Reagan haters could not care less about facts. That isn't their goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fucking hypocrite LIAR,you REAGANUT TROllS are the ones that dont care about FACTS.we arent the ones that change the subject talking about Obamas corruption when cornered with facts about how reagan betrayed americans refusing to comment on links and or watch videos and talk about the information in them.we address them,you all chickenshit cowards run off with your tail betweeen your legs when you know you are cornered. you all REFUSE to talk about ANY of the facts we have all posted,you all CONSTANTLY evaded them switching the subject talking about Obamas corruoption instead.
> 
> thats how you disinfo agents operate.pathetic.we dont go and change the subject talking about a different presidnet like you reaganut trolls do.you know it,we know troll.
Click to expand...

Still hurts, eh?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

by the way,did not mean to talk about any previous posts here already but had to say that since as always they were lying showing off what trolls they are saying WE lie when they are cornered with facts they cant refute and have to stoop to childish insults knowing they cant refute the facts.

anyways,dont want to get no reagan discussion going again,only wanted to pop in here and say -to know surprise the CIA controlled media is dishing out the lies about reagan again what a great president he was.In the most recent issue of TIME magazine,controled by the CIA of course as many people here know except the reaganut worshippers in denial about him,on the fron cover it says REAGANS LEGACY.they of course dont talk about all those crimes he committed that I listed in that link of course which is no surprise.

also just wanted to come back and post this about reagan because I came across it just by accident while reading this book on the JFK assassination,our last REAL president not a puppet for the bankers and our last great president we had.the book is called DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK.it goes on to sate in it-

I so concluded a survey of domestic intelligence operations published in early 1976.

later that year,in response to congressional revelations by the church and pike committes in the wake of watergate,attorney general edward levi issued new guidelines to prevent the indiscriminate monitoring of political dissenters.Although this executive order was apparently honered through the carter years,it also engendered a backlash.The reagan-bush promises in the 1980 presidential campaine to "unleash" the intelligence agencies.The new reagan administration moved promptly to overrule the levi guidelines,and progressively augment the collection of "dirt" not only on dissenters,but also on members of congress.

FURTHER PROOF REAGAN WAS FAR WORSE THAN CARTER EVER WAS. THE REAGANNUT  TROLLS LED BY CRUSADER RETARD AS THEIR RING LEADER, CAN ONLY SLING SHIT IN DEFEAT LIKE THE MONJEY TROLLS THEY ARE.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

hey agent meathaed, I see your bosses sent you here to troll again.they sure  pay you agent trolls a lot of money to troll these boards and constantly come back for your constant ass beatings you get here everyday.you guys wouldnt come back for them for free all the time,no way.


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> hey agent meathaed, I see your bosses sent you here to troll again.they sure  pay you agent trolls a lot of money to troll these boards and constantly come back for your constant ass beatings you get here everyday.you guys wouldnt come back for them for free all the time,no way.


Agent Meathead.

Yeah, that's how I make my living. Please beat me harder and make me feel cheap! I get extra that way!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> by the way,did not mean to talk about any previous posts here already but had to say that since as always they were lying showing off what trolls they are saying WE lie when they are cornered with facts they cant refute and have to stoop to childish insults knowing they cant refute the facts.
> 
> anyways,dont want to get no reagan discussion going again,only wanted to pop in here and say -to know surprise the CIA controlled media is dishing out the lies about reagan again what a great president he was.In the most recent issue of TIME magazine,controled by the CIA of course as many people here know except the reaganut worshippers in denial about him,on the fron cover it says REAGANS LEGACY.they of course dont talk about all those crimes he committed that I listed in that link of course which is no surprise.
> 
> also just wanted to come back and post this about reagan because I came across it just by accident while reading this book on the JFK assassination,our last REAL president not a puppet for the bankers and our last great president we had.the book is called DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK.it goes on to sate in it-
> 
> I so concluded a survey of domestic intelligence operations published in early 1976.
> 
> later that year,in response to congressional revelations by the church and pike committes in the wake of watergate,attorney general edward levi issued new guidelines to prevent the indiscriminate monitoring of political dissenters.Although this executive order was apparently honered through the carter years,it also engendered a backlash.The reagan-bush promises in the 1980 presidential campaine to "unleash" the intelligence agencies.The new reagan administration moved promptly to overrule the levi guidelines,and progressively augment the collection of "dirt" not only on dissenters,but also on members of congress.
> 
> FURTHER PROOF REAGAN WAS FAR WORSE THAN CARTER EVER WAS. THE REAGANNUT  TROLLS LED BY CRUSADER RETARD AS THEIR RING LEADER, CAN ONLY SLING SHIT IN DEFEAT LIKE THE MONJEY TROLLS THEY ARE.



It might have something to do with your Boss, Reagan's VP


----------



## Camp

With all the talk about terrorism in the news, it is only right to bring up the father and creator of modern day terrorism against America, Ronald Reagan. The man who gave terrorist a fighting chance and gave them acceptability.


----------



## Oldstyle

The man who gave terrorists their biggest gains ever currently sits in the Oval Office.  That is if he isn't out getting in yet another round of golf.

Barry's disjointed and confused Middle East policy has led to a terrorist army on the outskirts of the capital city of Iraq.  Winning gives terrorists "acceptability" and they have NEVER won like they have been under Obama's watch!


----------



## Dad2three

9/11 inside job said:


> Here are the facts that the reagan  nut worshippers cant handle.this poster asked this question and I will number the replies which are ALL true.
> 
> NUMBER ONE,the FIRST reply is the MOST important of them all-"even though the other ones are all interesting as well". because it tells the TRUTH how the economy was much worse under Reagan than it ever was under Carter.
> 
> When did outsourcing jobs to foreign countries begin?
> 
> Posters claim the policies of Obama has lead to companies outsourcing jobs, this has been going on long before Obama even thought about running for president!
> 
> HERE IT IS REAGANUT WORSHIPPERS.you can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls you are.
> left to do just this. remember these arent MY words below.just the facts from someone else.
> 
> 1.The Con posters here seem to forget it started long ago, it picked up steam during Bush II's administration, a Republican, a Conservative.
> 
> The corporations are traitors, plain and simple. Taking jobs to COMMUNIST countries, over keeping jobs in America!
> 
> 
> under Reagan..before that it wasnt worth it to ship jobs overseas because of our tariffs on goods coming in
> 
> Reagan reversed that.. under Carter our trade deficit was less than 10 million dollars, under Reagan it increased tens of billions of dollars...and the side effect is that it exposed our workers to have to compete for jobs with people in 3rd world countries making pennies a day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.It has been going on a long time, Perot, warned us of the "great sucking sound" if NAFTA was passed, he was right!
> 
> Cliinton signed it, but only because the Federal Reserve Chairman threatened to raise interest rates if he didn't.
> 
> 3. SECOND BEST ANSWER.
> 
> Alan Turing answered 2 years ago
> 
> 
> I first noticed it during the Reagan administration.
> 
> His post backs up what the first poster posted.
> 
> Alan remembers correctly.
> 
> 4.
> Free Trade
> 
> They force Clinton into some signing further. Then the Republicans went crazy making that money and taking jobs from the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The biggest push was when Clinton passed NAFTA and then made China the most favored trade nation. You could hear the jobs screaming across the borders... as for Obama, when you tell corporations what benefits you have to provide for your employees, then corporations will find countries that won't require high priced overheads.
> 
> 6.
> 
> BUT Yes, it picked up steam in Bush's term, But it REALLY picked up stem in Clinton's term, when China was given "most favored nation" status, and "NAFTA" became the way of the future.
> 
> So, yes, it grew under Bush, because of what CLINTON (a liberal, a DEMONcrat) Did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I began noticing it when Lee Iacocca needed help bailing out Chrysler and came out with the K-car. Most of the engines were outsourced to Japan.
> 
> It became more noticeable after Clinton signed NAFTA. That's basically when things began going bonkers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Clinton spent his first 4 yrs getting NAFTA passed , then increased USA corporate taxes , increased EPA regulation and then made China the most favored trade nation.
> 
> I remeber this well, because it was then when Bill Clinton got NAFTA passed that they started making plans to move first to Mexico and then later China ,at that time the USA made the most TV sets in the world ,,,,now China does 50,000 workers were laid off in the USA and HIRED IN CHINA , due only to the free trade of NAFTA and a simular bill for China
> People say its the wages ,but this is false the plant is all automated , the only labor is programmers , so its the taxes , that make the move PAY , as for traitors , well they TOLD the government if taxes were not reduced to the level of China's , stockholders were demanding more return on investment , and the management would need to move to China ,,, the USA government said screw you ,,, so they left for China ,,,,who welcomed the largest TV plant in the world , with open arms
> SO ITS THE USA FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHO IS THE TRAITORS , not the companies who are driven by the demands of stockholdes,,,,,and yes in china they make 40% more money for the stockholders who are all retired persons from around the earth who all purchased stock on the NASDAQ exchange , which anyone else can as well , the stock symbol for this company is PHG
> Simce they are now in China all the stockholders are doing great , and thanks to Bill Clinton all product made in China can be sold in the USA without tariff ,,,,hey thanks Bill and Hillary , you F'ing
> sell outs and YES policies of Obama follow those of the Clintons
> 
> Source(s):
> 
> 
> 
> .....Every year since the beginning of NAFTA, China's surplus with the U.S. has risen tremendously
> 
> .... In 2007 alone, China had a $256,000,000,000 surplus with the U.S.
> surplus means we buy more from china than ,they from the USA
> In 2007 alone, China had a $256,000,000,000 surplus with the U.S.
> .



NAFTA? Oh right that GOP bill, coming from conservative Heritage Foundation,  Reagan announced the day he ran for Prez in 1979, the one 60% of Dems in Congress voted against




"In 1979, while officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a &#8220;North American Agreement&#8221; which he said, will produce &#8220;a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.&#8221;"


----------



## Picaro

Ironically, after passing the NAFTA corporate welfare give a way, the subsidizing of off-shoring to Red China turned around and sucked jobs out of Mexico.


----------



## Camp

Oldstyle said:


> The man who gave terrorists their biggest gains ever currently sits in the Oval Office.  That is if he isn't out getting in yet another round of golf.
> 
> Barry's disjointed and confused Middle East policy has led to a terrorist army on the outskirts of the capital city of Iraq.  Winning gives terrorists "acceptability" and they have NEVER won like they have been under Obama's watch!



Oh nonsense. Arabs have been fighting Persians since biblical days. When Muslims separated into Sunni and Shiite they just had even more to kill each other over. You're blaming Obama for a war that has been going on since Old Testament days. I'll bet you can read about the battles between the Persians and Arabs in the Bible.


----------



## peach174

Dante said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
Click to expand...


You are the one doing the revisionism.

His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.


----------



## Agit8r

If he was in politics nowadays, Reagan would not be considered a conservative


----------



## Oldstyle

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man who gave terrorists their biggest gains ever currently sits in the Oval Office.  That is if he isn't out getting in yet another round of golf.
> 
> Barry's disjointed and confused Middle East policy has led to a terrorist army on the outskirts of the capital city of Iraq.  Winning gives terrorists "acceptability" and they have NEVER won like they have been under Obama's watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh nonsense. Arabs have been fighting Persians since biblical days. When Muslims separated into Sunni and Shiite they just had even more to kill each other over. You're blaming Obama for a war that has been going on since Old Testament days. I'll bet you can read about the battles between the Persians and Arabs in the Bible.
Click to expand...


Well, gee whiz, Camp!  If it's so obvious that Arabs have been fighting Persians since biblical days and will continue to do so...then why did we just pull out the troops that were keeping a fragile peace in place that is crucial to our economy?  And if you're going to make the claim that what happens there is not our business?  My next question is going to be why it is that President Obama hasn't been doing more to make us more energy independent?  Production of oil and natural gas is down on land controlled by the Feds.  It's up substantially elsewhere.  Does Barry not grasp what pulling troops out is going to do to that area of the Middle East?  Did he miscalculate that badly how nasty it would get this quickly?  What's his Middle East policy to stabilize the area?  What's his energy policy to protect our fragile economy from spiking oil prices?


----------



## Oldstyle

Agit8r said:


> If he was in politics nowadays, Reagan would not be considered a conservative



If Reagan was the President he'd be seen first and foremost as a leader.  We don't have that in the Oval Office right now.


----------



## Iceweasel

9/11 inside job said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who are more interested in the TRUTH about trade and deficeits than scoring stupid PARTISAN point?
> 
> Here's the REAL numbers from 1790 to present
> 
> Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006
> 
> What does this show us?
> 
> It shows us that our trade imbalances really started around 1970 and were accelerated thanks to our trade policies by EVER POTUS SINCE NIXXON!
> 
> 
> 
> The Reagan haters could not care less about facts. That isn't their goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fucking hypocrite LIAR,you REAGANUT TROllS are the ones that dont care about FACTS.we arent the ones that change the subject talking about Obamas corruption when cornered with facts about how reagan betrayed americans refusing to comment on links and or watch videos and talk about the information in them.we address them,you all chickenshit cowards run off with your tail betweeen your legs when you know you are cornered. you all REFUSE to talk about ANY of the facts we have all posted,you all CONSTANTLY evaded them switching the subject talking about Obamas corruoption instead.
> 
> thats how you disinfo agents operate.pathetic.we dont go and change the subject talking about a different presidnet like you reaganut trolls do.you know it,we know troll.
Click to expand...

Were you being fisted when you typed that?


----------



## hunarcy

peach174 said:


> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.



Better than W. and Obama as well.


----------



## Dante

Camp said:


> With all the talk about terrorism in the news, it is only right to bring up the father and creator of modern day terrorism against America, Ronald Reagan. The man who gave terrorist a fighting chance and gave them acceptability.



To be fair Reagan helped beat back the terrorism of the 70s/80s. 
All of them: Germans, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, Palestinian offshoots, Irish, and more...

When you want to beat back the myths of Reagan's legacy try dealing with facts and truth

Imbecilic posts likes yours only make the rest of Reagan's critics look bad

thanks for nothin' asshole
D


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


b.o.t.


----------



## Dad2three

peach174 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
Click to expand...


 The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan 


A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. 


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

My God, you've just rewritten decades of world history with a google search. Amazing!


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


Yeah? 2 landslide victories and his vice president elected president in a landslide as well ....Gallop poll in 1992? Really? Is that supposed to be relevant somehow? I think you're a paid hack actually


----------



## Dante

[MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=49669]Dad2three[/MENTION] [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]  





Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? 2 landslide victories and his vice president elected president in a landslide as well ....Gallop poll in 1992? Really? Is that supposed to be relevant somehow? I think you're a paid hack actually
Click to expand...


Here we go again.......

Landslides?  Reagan did not win by a popular landslide in 1980 as he did in 1984. He barely squeaked by. 

Reagan's win in 1980: Facts: 489 out of 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College.
270 electoral votes needed to win. Popular vote 	54,455,472

Voter Turnout 	52.6%

*Reagan's win: 50.8% of 52.6%* in a three way race. 49.2% didn't want him. 

Look at Obama's win in 2008: 365 out of 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College.
270 electoral votes needed to win. Popular vote 	69,498,516

Voter Turnout 61.6% (voting eligible)

*Obama's win: 52.9% of 61.6%* in a two way race. 47.1% didn't want him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008


----------



## Dante

[MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]  [MENTION=34777]Meathead[/MENTION] 





peach174 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
Click to expand...

 George Will

Nope dope: 1988: 





> Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> 
> *
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him.*
> 
> Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev&#8217;s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY&#8212;see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: &#8220;Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.&#8221;
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: &#8220;Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.&#8221;
> 
> Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a &#8220;suicide pact.&#8221;
> 
> Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan &#8220;wildly wrong&#8221; in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call &#8220;summit fever,&#8221; accusing Reagan of &#8220;appeasement&#8221; both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan&#8217;s &#8220;cutting deals with the evil empire&#8221; (see March 8, 1983). They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
> 
> Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.


----------



## Meathead

Dante said:


> *
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him.*
> 
> Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev&#8217;s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY&#8212;see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: &#8220;Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.&#8221;
> 
> Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: &#8220;Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.&#8221;
> 
> Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a &#8220;suicide pact.&#8221;
> 
> Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan &#8220;wildly wrong&#8221; in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call &#8220;summit fever,&#8221; accusing Reagan of &#8220;appeasement&#8221; both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan&#8217;s &#8220;cutting deals with the evil empire&#8221; (see March 8, 1983). They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.
> 
> Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.


[/QUOTE]An excellent example Reagan's greatness. Thank you.


----------



## Jroc

Dante said:


> [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=49669]Dad2three[/MENTION] [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? 2 landslide victories and his vice president elected president in a landslide as well ....Gallop poll in 1992? Really? Is that supposed to be relevant somehow? I think you're a paid hack actually
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.......
> 
> Landslides?  Reagan did not win by a popular landslide in 1980 as he did in 1984. He barely squeaked by.
> 
> Reagan's win in 1980: Facts: 489 out of 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College.
> 270 electoral votes needed to win. Popular vote 	54,455,472
> 
> Voter Turnout 	52.6%
> 
> Reagan's win: 50.8% of 52.6% *in a three way race.* 49.2% didn't want him.
> 
> Look at Obama's win in 2008: 365 out of 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College.
> 270 electoral votes needed to win. Popular vote 	69,498,516
> 
> Voter Turnout 61.6% (voting eligible)
> 
> *Obama's win: 52.9% of 61.6%* in a two way race. 47.1% didn't want him
> 
> United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



Looks like a landslide to me and against a setting president too









Obama is actually the only president in American history to be reelected with fewer votes than he got the first time, because the Republicans had a weak candidate, also the government unions got out their vote


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My God, you've just rewritten decades of world history with a google search. Amazing!
Click to expand...


Nah, HUNDREDS of millions of dollars right wing think tanks spent did that to create the MYTH of Ronnie


 How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president. 



The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997  when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of  an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagans legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. 


How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah? 2 landslide victories and his vice president elected president in a landslide as well ....Gallop poll in 1992? Really? Is that supposed to be relevant somehow? I think you're a paid hack actually
Click to expand...




Yeah, Weird those in 1992 that actually LIVED through Reagan's disaster wouldn't know better right? It took right wing think tanks to spend hundreds of millions to create the MYTHS of Ronnie.....


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man who gave terrorists their biggest gains ever currently sits in the Oval Office.  That is if he isn't out getting in yet another round of golf.
> 
> Barry's disjointed and confused Middle East policy has led to a terrorist army on the outskirts of the capital city of Iraq.  Winning gives terrorists "acceptability" and they have NEVER won like they have been under Obama's watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh nonsense. Arabs have been fighting Persians since biblical days. When Muslims separated into Sunni and Shiite they just had even more to kill each other over. You're blaming Obama for a war that has been going on since Old Testament days. I'll bet you can read about the battles between the Persians and Arabs in the Bible.
Click to expand...


Dude I cant believe after all this time you are  STILL. attempting to even try to have a  rational discussion with TROLLSTYLE. you really should follow the old advise of mine which is-


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see why you were named Meathead (dead from the neck up).
> 
> Fact: Reagan was not loved by conservatives when he left office.
> 
> Do you know what Reagan's popularity was his last year in office? Mostly between 49% & 53%.
> 
> Do you know what it must have been with conservatives? Read the past press he received form conservatives, in their very own words they now try to run away from
> 
> revisionism doesn't work where information is available
> 
> Fact: When Reagan left office his biggest detractors were conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one doing the revisionism.
> 
> His ratings went down because of the Iran-Contra affair.
> His ratings was at 53%, better than Nixon, Ford & Carter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


exactly.Peach like so many other brainwahed americans who cant think outside the box and for herself ,has been taken in by the idiot box in her front living room,  CIA controlled media's version of him, such as LIFE magazine and the way hollywood has put him on on a high mantle. I was pleased to see that the movie THE BUTLER actully told some of the true atrcoites that he committed while president.Thats the only time i can ever recall hollywood ever not worshipping him and actually saying something negative about him at all.

great link by the way.Thats one that I have never come across before.thanks for sharing it here.the reaganut brainwashed worshippers as always led by their ringleading cheerleader CRUSADER RETARD,CAN ONLY SLING SHIT IN DEFEAT LIKE THE MONKEY TROLLS THEY ARE.I say that all the time but have to since it is so much true.hee hee


----------



## sealybobo

Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagans final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their owna crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent eventsReagans recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get soft officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of moral disarmament and Safire mocking Reagans rapport with Gorbachev: He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachevs eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination. It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
Click to expand...


Reagan sucked

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

 Wed been discussing taxes on the air and the fact that Denmark has an average 52 percent income-tax rate. I asked him why people didnt revolt at such high taxes, and he smiled and pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid, with a minimum wage that equals roughly $18 per hour. Moreover, what Danes get for their taxes (that we dont) is a free college education and free health care, not to mention four weeks of paid vacation each year and notoriety as the happiest nation on earth, according to a major study done by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom.2

But it was once we were off the air that he made the comment that I found so enlightening.

You Americans are such suckers, he said. You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they dont. When working peoples taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this waylook at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the opposite of how it works for rich people!

My Danish guest was right. So before we get into the larger consequences of tax increases or tax cuts for the nations economic health, lets parse this business about what tax increases or cuts mean for the rich and for the not-so-rich.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> My God, you've just rewritten decades of world history with a google search. Amazing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, HUNDREDS of millions of dollars right wing think tanks spent did that to create the MYTH of Ronnie
> 
> 
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan
> 
> With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.
> 
> 
> 
> The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997  when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of  an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagans legacy across America.
> 
> In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away.
> 
> 
> How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com
Click to expand...


Dad trust me,you are wasting your time with these brainwashed Reagnut trolls.They are so much in denial and afraid of the truth,afraid to admit they have been brainwashed,they never read any of your links you post or take you up on a challenge to watch a video and talk about the information in there even if its from ACTUAL SOURCES of ACTUAL REPORTERS BACK THEN FROM THE 1980'S TALKING ABOUT HOW REAGANS POLICYS DESTROYED  THE MIDDLE CLASS FAMILYS.

They are so much in denial and scared of the truth,they do into thiese discussions only seeing what they WANT to see never which is why they never read your links or vidoes you post.I have already posted that link of yours here HUNDREDS of time on this thread and all they ever did every single time is come back and call me names evading those facts and change the subject talking about the corruption of Obama.

 they constantly do that here,knowing they are cornered and defeated,they evade your facts all the time and change the subject about how Obama has run the country into the ground acting like this thread is about Obama.

 the thing is though,nobody here that criticises Reagan has ever come on here and said that Obama is a good president so why these loonys feel the need to retreat to the subjject about Obama everytime when they are cornered is beyond me. 

these nutcases would be laughed out of a debating all in a minute if they debated there the same way they do here. they plug their ears and cover their eyes anytime you show them a link or a video that is negative on reagan.just read through this entire thread and you will see that for yourself. 

Im sure you noticed how they evaded that last link I posted in that post of mine you replied to right? they act like that link was never posted just like they will act like you never posted that link of yours that i have posted here hundreds of times on this thread.

trust me,you habg out here long enough,you'll find out exactly what i am talking about how they cover thier ears and close their eyes anytime you post a link or video negative about reagan.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

In 1984, Reagan won all but 1 of our 57 states


----------



## LA RAM FAN

sealybobo said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1988:* Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
> George Will
> 
> As the end of President Reagan&#8217;s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own&#8212;a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But *recent events&#8212;Reagan&#8217;s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.*
> 
> Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get &#8220;soft&#8221; officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed. Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of &#8220;moral disarmament&#8221; and Safire mocking Reagan&#8217;s rapport with Gorbachev: &#8220;He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev&#8217;s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.&#8221; It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]
> 
> Entity Tags: George Will, George Shultz, William Safire, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan sucked
> 
> Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts
> 
> We&#8217;d been discussing taxes on the air and the fact that Denmark has an average 52 percent income-tax rate. I asked him why people didn&#8217;t revolt at such high taxes, and he smiled and pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid, with a minimum wage that equals roughly $18 per hour. Moreover, what Danes get for their taxes (that we don&#8217;t) is a free college education and free health care, not to mention four weeks of paid vacation each year and notoriety as the happiest nation on earth, according to a major study done by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom.2
> 
> But it was once we were off the air that he made the comment that I found so enlightening.
> 
> &#8220;You Americans are such suckers,&#8221; he said. &#8220;You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don&#8217;t. When working peoples&#8217; taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way&#8212;look at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the opposite of how it works for rich people!&#8221;
> 
> My Danish guest was right. So before we get into the larger consequences of tax increases or tax cuts for the nation&#8217;s economic health, let&#8217;s parse this business about what tax increases or cuts mean for the rich and for the not-so-rich.
Click to expand...


Yeah and guess what? your hero Obomination just like every single president since reagan has,has followed his footsteps. every single president since reagan has been more evil and corrupt than the previous one.

our country was actually a half way decent country with actual freedoms back when carter was in office-the last fairly good president we had who served the people instead of the bankers and the establishment, but it hasnt been ever since Reagan took office since every single president since him has esculated what he got started.

and thats because whether you realise it or not,its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the american sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.The proof is in the pudding.our last GREAT president,who actually served the people instead of the bankers,paid for that mistake on nov 22nd 1963.

The president is just a puppet following their orders given to him by the bankers and military industrial complex-whom Eisenhower warned the american people to be aware of in his farewell address  speech.He wasnt being their willing puppet and wasnt doing what they told him to do and he paid the price for it on that date.

Since then,Carter has been the only decent president we have  had who also served the people instead of the bankers.perfect example of another presidnet who tried to do the right thing and as a result,another perfect example of another good president who did not get to serve in office very long because of that.

Here is the proof in the pudding that everything that I have said is true.You might actually take the time-"two hours out of your schedule," to watch it.

Nobody has ever been able to debunk it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> With all the talk about terrorism in the news, it is only right to bring up the father and creator of modern day terrorism against America, Ronald Reagan. The man who gave terrorist a fighting chance and gave them acceptability.



^ Liar


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Here are the facts that the reagan  nut worshippers cant handle.this poster asked this question and I will number the replies which are ALL true.
> 
> NUMBER ONE,the FIRST reply is the MOST important of them all-"even though the other ones are all interesting as well". because it tells the TRUTH how the economy was much worse under Reagan than it ever was under Carter.
> 
> When did outsourcing jobs to foreign countries begin?
> 
> Posters claim the policies of Obama has lead to companies outsourcing jobs, this has been going on long before Obama even thought about running for president!
> 
> HERE IT IS REAGANUT WORSHIPPERS.you can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls you are.
> left to do just this. remember these arent MY words below.just the facts from someone else.
> 
> 1.The Con posters here seem to forget it started long ago, it picked up steam during Bush II's administration, a Republican, a Conservative.
> 
> The corporations are traitors, plain and simple. Taking jobs to COMMUNIST countries, over keeping jobs in America!
> 
> 
> under Reagan..before that it wasnt worth it to ship jobs overseas because of our tariffs on goods coming in
> 
> Reagan reversed that.. under Carter our trade deficit was less than 10 million dollars, under Reagan it increased tens of billions of dollars...and the side effect is that it exposed our workers to have to compete for jobs with people in 3rd world countries making pennies a day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.It has been going on a long time, Perot, warned us of the "great sucking sound" if NAFTA was passed, he was right!
> 
> Cliinton signed it, but only because the Federal Reserve Chairman threatened to raise interest rates if he didn't.
> 
> 3. SECOND BEST ANSWER.
> 
> Alan Turing answered 2 years ago
> 
> 
> I first noticed it during the Reagan administration.
> 
> His post backs up what the first poster posted.
> 
> Alan remembers correctly.
> 
> 4.
> Free Trade
> 
> They force Clinton into some signing further. Then the Republicans went crazy making that money and taking jobs from the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The biggest push was when Clinton passed NAFTA and then made China the most favored trade nation. You could hear the jobs screaming across the borders... as for Obama, when you tell corporations what benefits you have to provide for your employees, then corporations will find countries that won't require high priced overheads.
> 
> 6.
> 
> BUT Yes, it picked up steam in Bush's term, But it REALLY picked up stem in Clinton's term, when China was given "most favored nation" status, and "NAFTA" became the way of the future.
> 
> So, yes, it grew under Bush, because of what CLINTON (a liberal, a DEMONcrat) Did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I began noticing it when Lee Iacocca needed help bailing out Chrysler and came out with the K-car. Most of the engines were outsourced to Japan.
> 
> It became more noticeable after Clinton signed NAFTA. That's basically when things began going bonkers.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.brighthub.com/office/human-re...
> 
> 
> 6. Clinton spent his first 4 yrs getting NAFTA passed , then increased USA corporate taxes , increased EPA regulation and then made China the most favored trade nation.
> 
> I remeber this well, because it was then when Bill Clinton got NAFTA passed that they started making plans to move first to Mexico and then later China ,at that time the USA made the most TV sets in the world ,,,,now China does 50,000 workers were laid off in the USA and HIRED IN CHINA , due only to the free trade of NAFTA and a simular bill for China
> People say its the wages ,but this is false the plant is all automated , the only labor is programmers , so its the taxes , that make the move PAY , as for traitors , well they TOLD the government if taxes were not reduced to the level of China's , stockholders were demanding more return on investment , and the management would need to move to China ,,, the USA government said screw you ,,, so they left for China ,,,,who welcomed the largest TV plant in the world , with open arms
> SO ITS THE USA FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHO IS THE TRAITORS , not the companies who are driven by the demands of stockholdes,,,,,and yes in china they make 40% more money for the stockholders who are all retired persons from around the earth who all purchased stock on the NASDAQ exchange , which anyone else can as well , the stock symbol for this company is PHG
> Simce they are now in China all the stockholders are doing great , and thanks to Bill Clinton all product made in China can be sold in the USA without tariff ,,,,hey thanks Bill and Hillary , you F'ing
> sell outs and YES policies of Obama follow those of the Clintons
> 
> Source(s):
> 
> Clinton supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he signed into law in 1994
> from Presidency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...
> 
> .....Every year since the beginning of NAFTA, China's surplus with the U.S. has risen tremendously
> 
> .... In 2007 alone, China had a $256,000,000,000 surplus with the U.S.
> surplus means we buy more from china than ,they from the USA
> In 2007 alone, China had a $256,000,000,000 surplus with the U.S.
> 
> web page http://www.madeinamericaproject.com/NAFT...



^ Paid CIA Disinformation agent calling Bush II A "Conservative"

LOLz


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.

since you have the memory comprehension skills of a two year old crusader retard,that means I have you on ignore.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

LOLZ

Reagan murdered billions

LOLz

Reagan was friends with bin Laden

LOLz

Reagan barely won reelection in 1984

LOLz


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? 2 landslide victories and his vice president elected president in a landslide as well ....Gallop poll in 1992? Really? Is that supposed to be relevant somehow? I think you're a paid hack actually
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Weird those in 1992 that actually LIVED through Reagan's disaster wouldn't know better right? It took right wing think tanks to spend hundreds of millions to create the MYTHS of Ronnie.....
Click to expand...


yeah exactly.somehow according to them,people who actually lived through those days or reporters back then reporting how his policys betrayed the middle class,are not credible people.just what the LAMESTREAM media and hollywood tells them is credible to them. 

the ones that come on here and say they were there and lived through it-like their cheerleading ringleader,the leader of the pack,crusader retard-a guy who goes into meltdown mode when you post anything negative about reagan,constantly throwing temper tantrems when he is cornered,repeating the same debunked lies over and over again,and has heart attacks over it,-a mental case who really should be in a instituiton as many around here will tell you the same thing,people like him who say they were there and lived through it,well if they were there,then they sure werent here living in the united states,they were obviously on a deserted island those 8 years.either that,or just children in diapers obviously who have gotten their information from the idiot box in the living room.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

This message is hidden because CrusaderFrank is on your ignore list. 

make that 3 farts in a row.

see what I am talking about Dad on their cheerleading ringleader Crusader Retard,how he has such an obsession with this and comes on here IMMEDIATELY when you debunk the myths of reagan? 

Im convinced beyond a doubt that he is a distant cousin of Reagans.while the other Reaganut worshippers  posts here are pretty pathetic as well- i got them all on my ignore list-except peach,she is the only one here who doesnt act like a lunatic in  her posts,unlike crusader retard,none of them go into meltdown mode like he does.

None of them go beserk like he does.Not to the EXTREMES he does anyways.They will act like 5 year old kids and ignore the truth like he does also but they at least dont have the obsession about this like he does.not to the extremes he does anyways coming on here IMMEDIATELY after you post something negative about him. 

I honestly think that he was a close relative of reagans so that being the case,he inherited many of his millions from his passing so thats why he has all the time in the world all day long and all night to come on here and troll and post immediatly after I come on here and expose the corruption of the real reagan.thats the ONLY thing that makes sense to me why he is far more obsessed over the truth of reagan being exposed much worse than any of the others. 

dont you think thats a goods theory and the only one that makes sense?


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> In 1984, Reagan won all but 1 of our 57 states



Weird, did he get more than 50%+ of the vote like Obama did twice? I guess weak candidates and conservative propaganda helped?


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> LOLZ
> 
> Reagan murdered billions
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Reagan was friends with bin Laden
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Reagan barely won reelection in 1984
> 
> LOLz



IT'S A SCANDAL IT'S A SCANDAL, IT'S A SCANDAL, SCANDAL I TELL YOU,

SCANDAL,SCANDAL,SCANDAL!!!!!!!


No I don't know what, where, when or who but give Issa more time and there will be a scandal, there will be I know Obama did it, I know he did, Fox said so.. 


LOLz


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hey look everyone, Dainty is going to tell some more lies...

Dainty, always as exciting and informative as a skunk with diarrhea... But not as pleasant to be around...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan murdered billion by giving bin Laden nukes and his deficits crashed the us econ...er I mean the economies of the entire solar system and Gorby suddenly decided that the Soviet Empire was evil and should be disbanded and after gorby decided to tear down the Berlin wall Reagan made a speech there to thank him


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan never even won an election -- that was a vast right wing conspiracy


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? 2 landslide victories and his vice president elected president in a landslide as well ....Gallop poll in 1992? Really? Is that supposed to be relevant somehow? I think you're a paid hack actually
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Weird those in 1992 that actually LIVED through Reagan's disaster wouldn't know better right? It took right wing think tanks to spend hundreds of millions to create the MYTHS of Ronnie.....
Click to expand...



Umm...yeah ok.. I was there and didn't receive any poll.. Hack


----------



## theliq

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLZ
> 
> Reagan murdered billions
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Reagan was friends with bin Laden
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Reagan barely won reelection in 1984
> 
> LOLz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S A SCANDAL IT'S A SCANDAL, IT'S A SCANDAL, SCANDAL I TELL YOU,
> 
> SCANDAL,SCANDAL,SCANDAL!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> No I don't know what, where, when or who but give Issa more time and there will be a scandal, there will be I know Obama did it, I know he did, Fox said so..
> 
> 
> LOLz
Click to expand...


I think you mean POX NEWS for that is what it is POX REPUBLICAN TRASH......but Americans feed on POX and love it


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? 2 landslide victories and his vice president elected president in a landslide as well ....Gallop poll in 1992? Really? Is that supposed to be relevant somehow? I think you're a paid hack actually
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Weird those in 1992 that actually LIVED through Reagan's disaster wouldn't know better right? It took right wing think tanks to spend hundreds of millions to create the MYTHS of Ronnie.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...yeah ok.. I was there and didn't receive any poll.. Hack
Click to expand...





So YOU don't know how polls work, got it....


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLZ
> 
> Reagan murdered billions
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Reagan was friends with bin Laden
> 
> LOLz
> 
> Reagan barely won reelection in 1984
> 
> LOLz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S A SCANDAL IT'S A SCANDAL, IT'S A SCANDAL, SCANDAL I TELL YOU,
> 
> SCANDAL,SCANDAL,SCANDAL!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> No I don't know what, where, when or who but give Issa more time and there will be a scandal, there will be I know Obama did it, I know he did, Fox said so..
> 
> 
> LOLz
Click to expand...


there you have it.as always,he evades facts knowing he is cornered trying to laugh them off in his defeat knowing he cant refute them. wow that really refutes my link of what a mass murderer he was.He sure  showed me.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Hey The Liq and Dad,that video on Obama i posted on my last post on page 147,I posted that mainly for sealybobo,but not just for him.Have you both seen that movie? if not,its a must see movie.its kinda long,two hours but its for sure worth the time watching it.as I said in that last post of mine on that page,it proves everything i said is the truth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

now dad you are seeing how their cheerleading ringleader debates.He doest.since i called him out how he throws temper tatrems and goes into meltdown mode when he gets frustrated he cant refute the facts,he is trying a different tactic now knowing heis cornered by the facts and backed up against the wall.trying to laugh them off is his new strategy to try and refute the facts.comedy gold.thats crusader retard for you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan was a robot who was built on a Hollywood set! He was never a real guy! Have you ever seen his birth certificate?

Reagan deficits destroyed humanity! Obama deficits stimulate the economy

Reagan kept the USSR From disbanding for YEARS! If he was such a bad robot actor, Gorby would have gladly collapsed his Empire in 1980!

ROBOT REAGAN KILLED THE US ECONOMY AND BILLIONS OF PEOPLE!!

You people are the stupidest motherfucker I've met in my life


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.
> 
> since you have the memory comprehension skills of a two year old crusader retard,that means I have you on ignore.



^ Paid CIA Disinformation Agent sent here to prop up the awful legacy of his boss, GHW Bush


----------



## Uncensored2008

Jroc said:


> Umm...yeah ok.. I was there and didn't receive any poll.. Hack



The feral baboon Dad2three is filled with rage that Reagan destroyed his beloved Soviet Union. He flings feces to express his rage.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...yeah ok.. I was there and didn't receive any poll.. Hack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The feral baboon Dad2three is filled with rage that Reagan destroyed his beloved Soviet Union. He flings feces to express his rage.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it was Ronnie, NOT 50+ years of US policy, it was the guy who cut and ran from terrorists....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...yeah ok.. I was there and didn't receive any poll.. Hack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The feral baboon Dad2three is filled with rage that Reagan destroyed his beloved Soviet Union. He flings feces to express his rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was Ronnie, NOT 50+ years of US policy, it was the guy who cut and ran from terrorists....
Click to expand...


Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feral baboon Dad2three is filled with rage that Reagan destroyed his beloved Soviet Union. He flings feces to express his rage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was Ronnie, NOT 50+ years of US policy, it was the guy who cut and ran from terrorists....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party
Click to expand...


Yup.  Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians. 

Oh, no, wait. He wasn't.  In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.

Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.


It was the only time the Russians took America seriously. If Goldwater had won back in '64 the Cold War wouldn't have carried on past the early '70s, and your disappointment with the failure of the USSR might have ebbed by now. 

So, Joe, are you beating the streets of south Chicago saving black teenagers from each other? And how is your pursuit of livestock coming along?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was Ronnie, NOT 50+ years of US policy, it was the guy who cut and ran from terrorists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians.
> 
> Oh, no, wait. He wasn't.  In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
Click to expand...


JoeB, Genuine Russian Communist and Reagan Hater


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was Ronnie, NOT 50+ years of US policy, it was the guy who cut and ran from terrorists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians.
> 
> Oh, no, wait. He wasn't.  In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
Click to expand...


Tibet has had enough of China, how's that working out?


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the only time the Russians took America seriously. If Goldwater had won back in '64 the Cold War wouldn't have carried on past the early '70s, and your disappointment with the failure of the USSR might have ebbed by now.
> 
> So, Joe, are you beating the streets of south Chicago saving black teenagers from each other? And how is your pursuit of livestock coming along?
Click to expand...


Wow, dude, frankly, it's white people like you that make the rest of us look ignorant.

Good thing you are hiding in a iron curtain shithole where no one will straighten you out...


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians.
> 
> Oh, no, wait. He wasn't.  In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tibet has had enough of China, how's that working out?
Click to expand...


Given that there are only 5 million Tibetans and a billion Han Chinese, about as well as you'd expect.  

Math isn't one of your strong suits, so let me explain it to you.  

the USSR was 150 million Russians lording over 150 million non-russians in the USSR and another 100 million Warsaw Pact country folks.  

The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire, and the folks in those other countries got tired of the Russians. 

It had nothing to do with Communism or Ronnie Ray-gun talking to a wall.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB, Genuine Russian Communist and Reagan Hater



Reagan wrecked the middle class, ran us into perpetual debt, and funded Jihadis who are now making our lives miserable.  

He did more damage to this country than the Russians ever did. 

And I voted for that senile old idiot twice.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the only time the Russians took America seriously. If Goldwater had won back in '64 the Cold War wouldn't have carried on past the early '70s, and your disappointment with the failure of the USSR might have ebbed by now.
> 
> So, Joe, are you beating the streets of south Chicago saving black teenagers from each other? And how is your pursuit of livestock coming along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, dude, frankly, it's white people like you that make the rest of us look ignorant.
> 
> Good thing you are hiding in a iron curtain shithole where no one will straighten you out...
Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you. The Iron Curtain is gone. It will be hard to understand, but they didn't much like communism. See, that's where Reagan came in. They did in fact "tear down this wall"!

Loser!


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Sorry to break it to you. The Iron Curtain is gone. It will be hard to understand, but they didn't much like communism. See, that's where Reagan came in. They did in fact "tear down this wall"!
> 
> Loser!



Or more like, the Russians said, "Ugh, why are we spending millions occupying Czechoslovakia?" 

Of course, the Slovaks didn't want anything to do with the Czechs... 

How does it feel to be History's Dormat? The Hapsburgs, the Nazis, the Communists and now big Corporations.  Anyone who wants to wipe their feet on you does.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to break it to you. The Iron Curtain is gone. It will be hard to understand, but they didn't much like communism. See, that's where Reagan came in. They did in fact "tear down this wall"!
> 
> Loser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or more like, the Russians said, "Ugh, why are we spending millions occupying Czechoslovakia?"
> 
> Of course, the Slovaks didn't want anything to do with the Czechs...
> 
> How does it feel to be History's Dormat? The Hapsburgs, the Nazis, the Communists and now big Corporations.  Anyone who wants to wipe their feet on you does.
Click to expand...

Don't know Joe. By all accounts, especially your own, you are a doormat. Getting fired from jobs, living in a shit hole, chasing cows and being a communist is not exactly the stuff of stature.

So please share.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to break it to you. The Iron Curtain is gone. It will be hard to understand, but they didn't much like communism. See, that's where Reagan came in. They did in fact "tear down this wall"!
> 
> Loser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Or more like, the Russians said, "Ugh, why are we spending millions occupying Czechoslovakia?"*
> 
> Of course, the Slovaks didn't want anything to do with the Czechs...
> 
> How does it feel to be History's Dormat? The Hapsburgs, the Nazis, the Communists and now big Corporations.  Anyone who wants to wipe their feet on you does.
Click to expand...


Yeah thats it!,,,,You're an idiot


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians.
> 
> Oh, no, wait. He wasn't.  In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tibet has had enough of China, how's that working out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that there are only 5 million Tibetans and a billion Han Chinese, about as well as you'd expect.
> 
> Math isn't one of your strong suits, so let me explain it to you.
> 
> the USSR was 150 million Russians lording over 150 million non-russians in the USSR and another 100 million Warsaw Pact country folks.
> 
> The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire, and the folks in those other countries got tired of the Russians.
> 
> It had nothing to do with Communism or Ronnie Ray-gun talking to a wall.
Click to expand...


The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire...

LOL

What a tool!

You must be on the Rdean Koch Brothers "Paying Progressive to look like total fucking morons" payroll

LOL. Gorby's Theme

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy-gOf-_3f4]The Beatles - I'm So Tired (2009 Stereo Remaster) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to break it to you. The Iron Curtain is gone. It will be hard to understand, but they didn't much like communism. See, that's where Reagan came in. They did in fact "tear down this wall"!
> 
> Loser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or more like, the Russians said, "Ugh, why are we spending millions occupying Czechoslovakia?"
> 
> Of course, the Slovaks didn't want anything to do with the Czechs...
> 
> How does it feel to be History's Dormat? The Hapsburgs, the Nazis, the Communists and now big Corporations.  Anyone who wants to wipe their feet on you does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know Joe. By all accounts, especially your own, you are a doormat. Getting fired from jobs, living in a shit hole, chasing cows and being a communist is not exactly the stuff of stature.
> 
> So please share.
Click to expand...


Not sure which accounts you are reading. 

 I live in one of the truly great cities, I'm a certified professional in my field, (APICS, Six Sigma), and really, not a Communist.  I just think that the people who do the work should get a fair paycheck.  

_"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."_ - Abraham Lincoln. 

"If my employees don't make enough to afford my products, I don't have a business"- 
Henry Ford. 

What a pair of fucking communists!


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a tool!
> 
> You must be on the Rdean Koch Brothers "Paying Progressive to look like total fucking morons" payroll



Of course they did.  

You see, an Empire might be cool if you are living in the Kremlin, but it really isn't that cool if you are just working at the plant in Leningrad punching a clock.  

Calling the fall of the USSR a failure of Communism is every bit as idiotic as calling the fall of the British Empire a failure of Capitalism.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was Ronnie, NOT 50+ years of US policy, it was the guy who cut and ran from terrorists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians.
> 
> Oh, no, wait. He wasn't.  In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
Click to expand...


yep,you're making way too mush sense for crusader retard to comeprehend.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Da,you didnt answer my question.have you seen that video THE OBAMA DECEPTION which in there actually talks about our last GREAT president JFK?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the only time the Russians took America seriously. If Goldwater had won back in '64 the Cold War wouldn't have carried on past the early '70s, and your disappointment with the failure of the USSR might have ebbed by now.
> 
> So, Joe, are you beating the streets of south Chicago saving black teenagers from each other? And how is your pursuit of livestock coming along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, dude, frankly, it's white people like you that make the rest of us look ignorant.
> 
> Good thing you are hiding in a iron curtain shithole where no one will straighten you out...
Click to expand...


you can sure say that again,his way of trying to refute facts and prove people wrong that reagan wasnt a mass murderer is just laugh.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB, Genuine Russian Communist and Reagan Hater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan wrecked the middle class, ran us into perpetual debt, and funded Jihadis who are now making our lives miserable.
> 
> He did more damage to this country than the Russians ever did.
> 
> And I voted for that senile old idiot twice.
Click to expand...


Did you cast an absentee ballot from Moscow?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a tool!
> 
> You must be on the Rdean Koch Brothers "Paying Progressive to look like total fucking morons" payroll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You see, an Empire might be cool if you are living in the Kremlin, but it really isn't that cool if you are just working at the plant in Leningrad punching a clock.
> 
> Calling the fall of the USSR a failure of Communism is every bit as idiotic as calling the fall of the British Empire a failure of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!

Fucking tool


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan defeated the USSR so badly the only play he left them was to take over the Democrat Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Ronald Reagan was totally responsible for the fact that all these non-Russian people decided they had enough of the Russians.
> 
> Oh, no, wait. He wasn't.  In fact, no one in his administration predicted the breakup of the USSR.
> 
> Wing Nuts miss the Cold War because it was the only time anyone took them seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yep,you're making way too mush sense for crusader retard to comeprehend.
Click to expand...


Sure, HW, sure. The clock punchers in Leningrad told Gorby to Tear down the Berlin Wall


----------



## polarbear

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The Russians got tired of maintaining this empire...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a tool!
> 
> You must be on the Rdean Koch Brothers "Paying Progressive to look like total fucking morons" payroll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did.
> 
> You see, an Empire might be cool if you are living in the Kremlin, but it really isn't that cool if you are just working at the plant in Leningrad punching a clock.
> 
> Calling the fall of the USSR a failure of Communism is every bit as idiotic as calling the fall of the British Empire a failure of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


If it wasn`t a failure (of communism) what was it then?
This thread started out claiming the cold war came to an end because :


Dante said:


> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets,  that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a  warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust  of the west and the USA



What the hell are you and this "Dante" smoking?
The entire Soviet block collapsed because it was in a state of terminal economic stagnation which Gorbachev tried to fix with his "Perestroika".
At the same time there was massive dissent in all non-Russian states of the USSR because everybody was fed up with communism.
It began with Estonia demanding autonomy and was followed by the rest of the Baltic states. From there anti-totalitarian protests spread into the trans Caucasus region into Azerbaijan and erupted into violent confrontations with Russia proper...a conflict which still persists today under Putin`s pseudo democracy.
Communist rule by central planning was dealt the death blow when  Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Byelorussia, and the Central Asian republics also began revolting.
None of that had sweet f- all to do with Reagan acting like a libtard as your pal claims, the entire communist block imploded because everybody who was locked in behind the "iron curtain" was fed up with communism.

Reagan`s increased military spending hastened the economic collapse of the USSR because they tried to compete and ran out of Rubles.

I was in Germany when the "Wall" came down. If communism were as great as you say it is, why did millions of East Germans pour across the border ?...within hours after the "Stasi" stopped manning their machine gun towers and stopped gunning down people who tried to flee communism.

Assholes like you and your pal who know communism only in the abstract should be sent to one of these "rehabilitation" forced labor Gulags where the Soviets imprisoned the dissenters they did not bother to execute.

This would not be happening if Reagan were the current POTUS:
Canadian Air Force intercepts Russian bombers over Atlantic | World | RIA Novosti


> *Canadian Air Force intercepts Russian bombers over Atlantic*
> 
> Canadian F-18 pilots took to the air from the Bagotville Air Force Base  in Quebec after identifying two Russsian Tu-95 Bears in the country's  buffer zone on Wednesday.


There is a lot more going on than just that.
Aubrey Grebenshikov, second secretary of the Russian Embassy in Ottawa,  says that Canadian and Russian militaries used to be able to work out  such &#8220;misunderstandings&#8221; 
Putin even seems determined to test spots along the vast North American Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which stretches out 200 miles, or 321 kilometres, beyond Canadian and U.S. continental borders.  

U.S. jets intercepted Russian long-range bombers off Alaska and California this month, just the latest in an increasing number of confrontations off the Pacific coast.
UKRAINE-CRISIS/PUTIN

Vladimir Putin's provocations in Ukraine, including the annexation of Crimea, have angered Western leaders. (Maxim Shemetov/Reuters)
CBC Canada today:


> What startled Washington was the brazenness of the flights and their growing numbers since the Ukraine crisis broke. The latest Alaskan challenge involved four bombers plus two aerial refueling tankers. Two of the bombers later flew west to within 130 kilometres of northern California.
> 
> 
> With the passing of the Cold War, the probes disappeared for many years.  But now under Putin and what appears to be the beginning of a Chill  War, their reemergence means a lot of extra headaches and workload for  U.S. and Canadian pilots.
> A sustained campaign of Russian harassment, if it comes to that, will  compel our air force to fully employ the four Forward Operation Location  (FOL) sites set up as interception mini-bases in Yellowknife, Iqaluit,  Inuvik and Rankin Inlet
> What is worrisome for those trying to predict Russian behaviour is  that problems may not end with flights. Russia has been significantly  increasing both civilian and military resources within its Arctic  region, from nuclear icebreakers to 80 naval ships, and is now adding  mobile missiles.
> According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the Russians are testing  short-range Pantsir-S1 missiles in the far north for use against  aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles, even drones


No way would the Russians dare to pull these stunts within sight of USAF-base Thule/Greenland, the Alaska coast and within 130 klicks of California while Reagan was  CIC instead of Obama. 
Obama has "drawn lines in the sand" and defined so called "red lines" which nobody takes serious. The centrifuges in Iran keep churning out U 235 while Putin has Europe in a headlock.  JFK would spin in his  grave if he would be aware what`s been going on since Obama became President.
He and his entire entourage are the laughing stock of the rest of the West:
http://ml.spiegel.de/article.do?id=890184


> Obamas Limousine falsch betankt
> *Das Biest hat sich verschluckt
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wegen  einer peinlichen Panne muss US-Präsident Barack Obama bei einem  Staatsbesuch in Israel auf seine gepanzerte Limousine verzichten. Die  eine Millionen Dollar teure Staatskarosse wurde zwar extra eingeflogen -  aber in Jerusalem falsch betankt.*
> 
> 
> Jerusalem  - Man nennt ihn "das Biest". Der Cadillac, in dem Barack Obama  chauffiert wird, ist mit jedem erdenklichen  Hochsicherheits-Schnickschnack ausgerüstet. Unter anderem ist der Wagen  gegen Angriffe mit biochemischen Waffen gerüstet und verfügt über ein  System zur unabhängigen Sauerstoffversorgung der Insassen.
> Statt mit Diesel war der Eine-Millionen-Dollar-Wagen mit Benzin betankt worden.
> Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass Obama auf einem Staatsbesuch liegen  bleibt. Schon 2011 hatte er auf einer Auslandsreise Pech mit einem  seiner Wagen. Ein Ersatzfahrzeug setzte damals beim Verlassen der  US-Botschaft in Irland auf einer Bodenwelle auf und saß fest.


Translation:
"Obama`s beast" is what Israelis call Obama`s Limo. It`s got every security nick-nack  currently availabe, including it`s own oxygen supply in case of a biological weapon attack but has no defense against stupidity.
Obama`s entourage fueled up his million $ Diesel engine Cadillac with gas and trashed it.
Before that incident they hit the ditch in Ireland and Obama had to be picked up in another replacement limo.
Romney hit the nail on the head when he said to Obama "you sure know how to pick losers"


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!
> 
> Fucking tool



Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.  

Everything fails eventually. 

Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad. 

The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better. 

I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad. 

Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good. 

Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.  

So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!
> 
> Fucking tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
Click to expand...


There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.  

When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, *that makes one a sucker.  *


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!
> 
> Fucking tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.
> 
> When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, *that makes one a sucker.  *
Click to expand...


If only we could go back to small government again; a time when most Americans were simple farmers and land was dirt cheap.  It was that damn industrial revolution that changed America, it even changed where people lived and taught them to depend on a job in an industrial city. 
We have an economic depression today and people, go hungry. I say bring back the farm and we won't need big government, it's that simple. Of course we have to make land dirt-cheap again, and maybe change our goal to forty acres and a mule, not computers and air planes?


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.



Comrade Joeb, while you are uneducated, and know nothing of economics, politics, or history, you are a loyal drone to the party.

However, your stupidy betrays you again. For recessions or depressions to be a "failure" of capitalism, they would have to be unique to the capitalist markets?

Are they, Comrade?

Well of course you don't know, you wouldn't grasp the concept of the business cycle if you were bitch-slapped by the invisible hand. 

However your GLORIOUS Soviet Union had far more frequent economic troughs than we in the decadent West have had. 

If you were not stupid, and you weren't a Communist (but I repeat myself) I would explain to you that 2007 was the market working exactly as it should - the success of Capitalism. Without the dog-fucking by Bush and Obama, the correction would have achieved exactly what it needed to, the removal of corrupt looters from the market.

But no worries, Obama was there to save the looters by handing them a trillion dollars taken from the Bourgeoisie (the middle class.)



> Everything fails eventually.



ROFL

Entropy doesn't affect theories, moron.



> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.



Is that right?



> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?



I'm afraid that you are a drooling simpleton who spouts idiocy that you glean from hate sites, while you lack any actual knowledge.

You advocate for Communism here, but have you ever read "Capital?" Or "The Communist Manifesto?" Or "Man, Economy, and State?"  Or "A Monetary History of the United States."

No, you've read DailyKOS and ThinkProgess, and think this somehow qualifies you to spout your idiocy.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comrade Joeb, while you are uneducated, and know nothing of economics, politics, or history, you are a loyal drone to the party.
> 
> However, your stupidy betrays you again. For recessions or depressions to be a "failure" of capitalism, they would have to be unique to the capitalist markets?
> 
> Are they, Comrade?
> 
> Well of course you don't know, you wouldn't grasp the concept of the business cycle if you were bitch-slapped by the invisible hand.
> 
> However your GLORIOUS Soviet Union had far more frequent economic troughs than we in the decadent West have had.
> 
> If you were not stupid, and you weren't a Communist (but I repeat myself) I would explain to you that 2007 was the market working exactly as it should - the success of Capitalism. Without the dog-fucking by Bush and Obama, the correction would have achieved exactly what it needed to, the removal of corrupt looters from the market.
> 
> But no worries, Obama was there to save the looters by handing them a trillion dollars taken from the Bourgeoisie (the middle class.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Entropy doesn't affect theories, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that you are a drooling simpleton who spouts idiocy that you glean from hate sites, while you lack any actual knowledge.
> 
> You advocate for Communism here, but have you ever read "Capital?" Or "The Communist Manifesto?" Or "Man, Economy, and State?"  Or "A Monetary History of the United States."
> 
> No, you've read DailyKOS and ThinkProgess, and think this somehow qualifies you to spout your idiocy.
Click to expand...




Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol

    Panic of 179697
    Panic of 1819
    Panic of 1825
    Panic of 1826
    Panic of 1837
    Panic of 1857
    Panic of 1866
    Panic of 1873
    Panic of 1884
    Panic of 1893
    Panic of 1896

Banking panics in the United States

    1792
    179697
    1819
    1825
    1837
    1847
    1857
    1866
    1873
    1884
    1890 (Baring crisis)
    1893
    1896
    1901
    1907
    1910-11
    1929
    2007-08




Category:Economic disasters in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail. 

Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Panic of 1837 was a financial crisis in the United States that touched off a major recession that lasted until the mid-1840s. Profits, prices and wages went down while unemployment went up. P

Panic of 1837 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol



If your handlers will put Ritalin in your banana to calm you down and reduce your shit flinging for a moment, I will attempt to converse with you.



> Panic of 179697
> Panic of 1819
> Panic of 1825
> Panic of 1826
> Panic of 1837
> Panic of 1857
> Panic of 1866
> Panic of 1873
> Panic of 1884
> Panic of 1893
> Panic of 1896



These were the result of what? What was the result of them?

Again you fling shit and think it has some bearing on the conversation. I know, your goal is to distract through your antics, not to make a cogent point.

Still, you bring up bank panics from the 19th century as if they are some sort of impeachment to market driven systems. Naturally you fail to explain why your trainers had you post them.

Let's actually look at the bullshit you post, shall we?

First, there was no actual "panic" of 1796, your trainers decided to "pad" things - leftists lie, since facts are the enemy of the left.

Panic of 1819

The Second Bank of the United States issued huge amounts of paper currency to stimulate the economy - some fucktarded fool got the notion that deficit spending would stimulate economic growth and create revenue returns in excess of government expenditures.

Now you are monkey, you lack the wits of a man, thus you cannot grasp facts or reality - but FAR from the "Libertarians" supporting this idiocy, they spoke against it.

{As early as 1814, Thomas Jefferson warned, "We are to be ruined by paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper." Two years later, he asserted that "we are under a bank bubble" that would soon burst.}

Panic of 1819: The First Major U.S. Depression - The Globalist

Ooops, not quite the tale you're trying to fabricate, is it?




> The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail.
> 
> Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I assume you think this makes some sort of point?




> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.



ROFL

Yes, because the regulated banks of 1926 were so "Laissez Faire."

You should at least attempt to learn what words mean before you bandy them about, monkey boi


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!
> 
> Fucking tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
Click to expand...


1928 the Fed Strangles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply

2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your handlers will put Ritalin in your banana to calm you down and reduce your shit flinging for a moment, I will attempt to converse with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Panic of 179697
> Panic of 1819
> Panic of 1825
> Panic of 1826
> Panic of 1837
> Panic of 1857
> Panic of 1866
> Panic of 1873
> Panic of 1884
> Panic of 1893
> Panic of 1896
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These were the result of what? What was the result of them?
> 
> Again you fling shit and think it has some bearing on the conversation. I know, your goal is to distract through your antics, not to make a cogent point.
> 
> Still, you bring up bank panics from the 19th century as if they are some sort of impeachment to market driven systems. Naturally you fail to explain why your trainers had you post them.
> 
> Let's actually look at the bullshit you post, shall we?
> 
> First, there was no actual "panic" of 1796, your trainers decided to "pad" things - leftists lie, since facts are the enemy of the left.
> 
> Panic of 1819
> 
> The Second Bank of the United States issued huge amounts of paper currency to stimulate the economy - some fucktarded fool got the notion that deficit spending would stimulate economic growth and create revenue returns in excess of government expenditures.
> 
> Now you are monkey, you lack the wits of a man, thus you cannot grasp facts or reality - but FAR from the "Libertarians" supporting this idiocy, they spoke against it.
> 
> {As early as 1814, Thomas Jefferson warned, "We are to be ruined by paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper." Two years later, he asserted that "we are under a bank bubble" that would soon burst.}
> 
> Panic of 1819: The First Major U.S. Depression - The Globalist
> 
> Ooops, not quite the tale you're trying to fabricate, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail.
> 
> Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you think this makes some sort of point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Yes, because the regulated banks of 1926 were so "Laissez Faire."
> 
> You should at least attempt to learn what words mean before you bandy them about, monkey boi
Click to expand...




Got it, you'll stick to right wing myths, distortions and lies

Laizze affaire? WHERE ? WHEN?

 Now YES, the  NATIONAL BANK the US created in 1913 hasn't slowed down the libertarians crashing the economy totally, but yes, it's slowed it down. Weird how when the 'market forces' are left to their own, as 1826, 1929 AND 2008 crash shows, the markets do HORRIBLE for the majority of people

MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES IS ALL YOU HAVE

Weird you can't point to ONE successful state/nation to EVER use libertarian economic  policy successfully! 

Jefferson the guy who wanted to 'share the wealth' and have the rich carry the tax burden, was libertarian? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your handlers will put Ritalin in your banana to calm you down and reduce your shit flinging for a moment, I will attempt to converse with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Panic of 179697
> Panic of 1819
> Panic of 1825
> Panic of 1826
> Panic of 1837
> Panic of 1857
> Panic of 1866
> Panic of 1873
> Panic of 1884
> Panic of 1893
> Panic of 1896
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These were the result of what? What was the result of them?
> 
> Again you fling shit and think it has some bearing on the conversation. I know, your goal is to distract through your antics, not to make a cogent point.
> 
> Still, you bring up bank panics from the 19th century as if they are some sort of impeachment to market driven systems. Naturally you fail to explain why your trainers had you post them.
> 
> Let's actually look at the bullshit you post, shall we?
> 
> First, there was no actual "panic" of 1796, your trainers decided to "pad" things - leftists lie, since facts are the enemy of the left.
> 
> Panic of 1819
> 
> The Second Bank of the United States issued huge amounts of paper currency to stimulate the economy - some fucktarded fool got the notion that deficit spending would stimulate economic growth and create revenue returns in excess of government expenditures.
> 
> Now you are monkey, you lack the wits of a man, thus you cannot grasp facts or reality - but FAR from the "Libertarians" supporting this idiocy, they spoke against it.
> 
> {As early as 1814, Thomas Jefferson warned, "We are to be ruined by paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper." Two years later, he asserted that "we are under a bank bubble" that would soon burst.}
> 
> Panic of 1819: The First Major U.S. Depression - The Globalist
> 
> Ooops, not quite the tale you're trying to fabricate, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Panic of 1826 was a financial crisis built upon fraudulent financial practices from the management of various firms. The height of the panic occurred during July 1826 when six of the sixty-seven companies publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange abruptly failed. Within the coming months, twelve more NYSE firms would also fail.
> 
> Panic of 1826 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you think this makes some sort of point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Yes, because the regulated banks of 1926 were so "Laissez Faire."
> 
> You should at least attempt to learn what words mean before you bandy them about, monkey boi
Click to expand...


 Panic of 179697

The Panic of 17961797 was a series of downturns in Atlantic credit markets that led to broader commercial downturns in both Britain and the United States. In the U.S., problems first emerged when a land speculation bubble burst in 1796. The crisis deepened when the Bank of England suspended specie payments on February 25, 1797 under the Bank Restriction Act of 1797. The Bank's directors feared insolvency when English account holders, who were nervous about a possible French invasion, began withdrawing their deposits. In combination with the unfolding collapse of the U.S. real estate market, the Bank of England's action had disflationary repercussions in the financial and commercial markets of the coastal United States and the Caribbean at the start of the 19th century.

By 1800, the crisis had resulted in the collapse of many prominent merchant firms in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and the imprisonment of many American debtors. The latter included the famed financier of the revolution Robert Morris and his partner James Greenleaf who had invested in backcountry land.

Panic of 1796?97 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!
> 
> Fucking tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1928 the Fed Straggles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply
> 
> 2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.
Click to expand...


MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you


The Money Supply and Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Before and During the Great Depression Years

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm


1/3rdc  huh? lol

US Money Supply M2 (USCB) 1925-1939 - US Stuck on Stupid




Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.











Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. 


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture




No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)

1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom

2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


MY FAV

Bill Black went through what AEI said about the GSEs during the 2000s and it is the same thing  that they were blocking subprime loans from being made. In the words of Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture




Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC



I'M SHOCKED YOU DIDN'T BLAME BARNEY OR CLINTON


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!
> 
> Fucking tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1928 the Fed Straggles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply
> 
> 2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.
Click to expand...




 Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.



The basic structure of the adjustable-rate mortgages that lenders used to grow the subprime market was premised on continued house appreciation. Once the housing bubble peaked subprime ARM loans suddenly became extremely prone to default. 

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



GOV'T HUH?


Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed


Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Got it, you'll stick to right wing myths, distortions and lies
> 
> Laizze affaire? WHERE ? WHEN?
> 
> Now YES, the  NATIONAL BANK the US created in 1913 hasn't slowed down the libertarians crashing the economy totally, but yes, it's slowed it down. Weird how when the 'market forces' are left to their own, as 1826, 1929 AND 2008 crash shows, the markets do HORRIBLE for the majority of people
> 
> MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES IS ALL YOU HAVE
> 
> Weird you can't point to ONE successful state/nation to EVER use libertarian economic  policy successfully!
> 
> Jefferson the guy who wanted to 'share the wealth' and have the rich carry the tax burden, was libertarian? lol



Ah but monkey boi, you made the claim that banks were "laissez faire" in 1926, after they were already under the thumb of the Federal Reserve system.

This is why I laugh at you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Panic of 179697
> 
> The Panic of 17961797 was a series of downturns in Atlantic credit markets that led to broader commercial downturns in both Britain and the United States. In the U.S., problems first emerged when a land speculation bubble burst in 1796. The crisis deepened when the Bank of England suspended specie payments on February 25, 1797 under the Bank Restriction Act of 1797. The Bank's directors feared insolvency when English account holders, who were nervous about a possible French invasion, began withdrawing their deposits. In combination with the unfolding collapse of the U.S. real estate market, the Bank of England's action had disflationary repercussions in the financial and commercial markets of the coastal United States and the Caribbean at the start of the 19th century.
> 
> By 1800, the crisis had resulted in the collapse of many prominent merchant firms in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and the imprisonment of many American debtors. The latter included the famed financier of the revolution Robert Morris and his partner James Greenleaf who had invested in backcountry land.
> 
> Panic of 1796?97 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So the, there was no such panic in the American economy, it was the managed economies of the European monarchies that suffered the downturn,,,




You're too easy.


----------



## Dad2three

uncensored2008 said:


> dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> got it, you'll stick to right wing myths, distortions and lies
> 
> laizze affaire? Where ? When?
> 
> Now yes, the  national bank the us created in 1913 hasn't slowed down the libertarians crashing the economy totally, but yes, it's slowed it down. Weird how when the 'market forces' are left to their own, as 1826, 1929 and 2008 crash shows, the markets do horrible for the majority of people
> 
> myths and fairy tales is all you have
> 
> weird you can't point to one successful state/nation to ever use libertarian economic  policy successfully!
> 
> Jefferson the guy who wanted to 'share the wealth' and have the rich carry the tax burden, was libertarian? Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah but monkey boi, you made the claim that banks were "laissez faire" in 1926, after they were already under the thumb of the federal reserve system.
> 
> This is why i laugh at you.
Click to expand...


lol, 1826 bozo


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Panic of 179697
> 
> The Panic of 17961797 was a series of downturns in Atlantic credit markets that led to broader commercial downturns in both Britain and the United States. In the U.S., problems first emerged when a land speculation bubble burst in 1796. The crisis deepened when the Bank of England suspended specie payments on February 25, 1797 under the Bank Restriction Act of 1797. The Bank's directors feared insolvency when English account holders, who were nervous about a possible French invasion, began withdrawing their deposits.
> 
> By 1800, the crisis had resulted in the collapse of many prominent merchant firms in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and the imprisonment of many American debtors. The latter included the famed financier of the revolution Robert Morris and his partner James Greenleaf who had invested in backcountry land.
> 
> Panic of 1796?97 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the, there was no such panic in the American economy, it was the managed economies of the European monarchies that suffered the downturn,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too easy.
Click to expand...


"In combination with the unfolding collapse of the U.S. real estate market, the Bank of England's action had disflationary repercussions in the financial and commercial markets of the coastal United States and the Caribbean at the start of the 19th century...By 1800, the crisis had resulted in the collapse of many prominent merchant firms in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and the imprisonment of many American debtors"


GROW A BRAIN BUBBA


Libertarians believe in myths and fairy tales


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1928 the Fed Straggles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply
> 
> 2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you
> 
> 
> The Money Supply and Consumer Price Index (CPI)
> Before and During the Great Depression Years
> 
> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm
> 
> 
> 1/3rdc  huh? lol
> 
> US Money Supply M2 (USCB) 1925-1939 - US Stuck on Stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
> 
> 
> The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
> 
> run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
> 
> 
> Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs.
> 
> 
> Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> Bill Black went through what AEI said about the GSEs during the 2000s and it is the same thing  that they were blocking subprime loans from being made. In the words of Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
> 
> 
> 
> I'M SHOCKED YOU DIDN'T BLAME BARNEY OR CLINTON
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing how the Fed reduced the money supply by 1/3 from 1928-1932

On 2008 you're as wrong as Krugman


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know, Communism rocks. So what if it's failed every time and every place it's been tried. Next time it'll work!
> 
> Fucking tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.
> 
> When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, *that makes one a sucker.  *
Click to expand...


Okay, so you are a retard with no reading comprehension skills and didn't follow a thing I said. 

Okay. Got it. 

"Government Bad".  Except when they send a check to your double wide.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let 'capitalism' work as libertarians wish? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your handlers will put Ritalin in your banana to calm you down and reduce your shit flinging for a moment, I will attempt to converse with you.
> 
> 
> 
> These were the result of what? What was the result of them?
> 
> Again you fling shit and think it has some bearing on the conversation. I know, your goal is to distract through your antics, not to make a cogent point.
> 
> Still, you bring up bank panics from the 19th century as if they are some sort of impeachment to market driven systems. Naturally you fail to explain why your trainers had you post them.
> 
> Let's actually look at the bullshit you post, shall we?
> 
> First, there was no actual "panic" of 1796, your trainers decided to "pad" things - leftists lie, since facts are the enemy of the left.
> 
> Panic of 1819
> 
> The Second Bank of the United States issued huge amounts of paper currency to stimulate the economy - some fucktarded fool got the notion that deficit spending would stimulate economic growth and create revenue returns in excess of government expenditures.
> 
> Now you are monkey, you lack the wits of a man, thus you cannot grasp facts or reality - but FAR from the "Libertarians" supporting this idiocy, they spoke against it.
> 
> {As early as 1814, Thomas Jefferson warned, "We are to be ruined by paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper." Two years later, he asserted that "we are under a bank bubble" that would soon burst.}
> 
> Panic of 1819: The First Major U.S. Depression - The Globalist
> 
> Ooops, not quite the tale you're trying to fabricate, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you think this makes some sort of point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Yes, because the regulated banks of 1926 were so "Laissez Faire."
> 
> You should at least attempt to learn what words mean before you bandy them about, monkey boi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you'll stick to right wing myths, distortions and lies
> 
> Laizze affaire? WHERE ? WHEN?
> 
> Now YES, the  NATIONAL BANK the US created in 1913 hasn't slowed down the libertarians crashing the economy totally, but yes, it's slowed it down. Weird how when the 'market forces' are left to their own, as 1826, 1929 AND 2008 crash shows, the markets do HORRIBLE for the majority of people
> 
> MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES IS ALL YOU HAVE
> 
> Weird you can't point to ONE successful state/nation to EVER use libertarian economic  policy successfully!
> 
> Jefferson the guy who wanted to 'share the wealth' and have the rich carry the tax burden, was libertarian? lol
Click to expand...


Uncensored is a disinfo agent.He should change his user name to CENSORED because he beats the drums of the governments version of events all the time no matter how absurd they are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.
> 
> When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, *that makes one a sucker.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you are a retard with no reading comprehension skills and didn't follow a thing I said.
> 
> Okay. Got it.
> 
> "Government Bad".  Except when they send a check to your double wide.
Click to expand...


that describes Crusader Retard and the reagan apologists to a tee.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101*
> *1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives*​
> This is why the GOP lost in 2008 and 2012: They are living in a past that never existed, just like Reagan did. Reagan raised taxes, grew government, backed socialist programs, and more. When a political party lives on myth, sooner or later it all just collapses into a warm pile of shit
> 
> 
> 
> So it was Reagan's becoming more liberal towards the Soviets, that brought about Reagan's deals with the Soviets, that led to a warming of the cold war and the end of the Soviets' hostility distrust of the west and the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan sucked
> 
> Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts
> 
> We&#8217;d been discussing taxes on the air and the fact that Denmark has an average 52 percent income-tax rate. I asked him why people didn&#8217;t revolt at such high taxes, and he smiled and pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid, with a minimum wage that equals roughly $18 per hour. Moreover, what Danes get for their taxes (that we don&#8217;t) is a free college education and free health care, not to mention four weeks of paid vacation each year and notoriety as the happiest nation on earth, according to a major study done by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom.2
> 
> But it was once we were off the air that he made the comment that I found so enlightening.
> 
> &#8220;You Americans are such suckers,&#8221; he said. &#8220;You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don&#8217;t. When working peoples&#8217; taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way&#8212;look at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the opposite of how it works for rich people!&#8221;
> 
> My Danish guest was right. So before we get into the larger consequences of tax increases or tax cuts for the nation&#8217;s economic health, let&#8217;s parse this business about what tax increases or cuts mean for the rich and for the not-so-rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah and guess what? your hero Obomination just like every single president since reagan has,has followed his footsteps. every single president since reagan has been more evil and corrupt than the previous one.
> 
> our country was actually a half way decent country with actual freedoms back when carter was in office-the last fairly good president we had who served the people instead of the bankers and the establishment, but it hasnt been ever since Reagan took office since every single president since him has esculated what he got started.
> 
> and thats because whether you realise it or not,its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the american sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.The proof is in the pudding.our last GREAT president,who actually served the people instead of the bankers,paid for that mistake on nov 22nd 1963.
> 
> The president is just a puppet following their orders given to him by the bankers and military industrial complex-whom Eisenhower warned the american people to be aware of in his farewell address  speech.He wasnt being their willing puppet and wasnt doing what they told him to do and he paid the price for it on that date.
> 
> Since then,Carter has been the only decent president we have  had who also served the people instead of the bankers.perfect example of another presidnet who tried to do the right thing and as a result,another perfect example of another good president who did not get to serve in office very long because of that.
> 
> Here is the proof in the pudding that everything that I have said is true.You might actually take the time-"two hours out of your schedule," to watch it.
> 
> Nobody has ever been able to debunk it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw]The Obama Deception HQ Full length version - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Dad you never answered my question here which is have you seen this two hour video THE OBAMA DECEPTION? you should watch it because there is one part in there  that refers to JFK and explains in detail with proof contrary to what the reaganut worshippers believe,that JFK was our last GREAT president we had.

JFK was our last GREAT president we had but carter was our last GOOD president we had.we were actually taking positive steps under carters leadership when he was in office on getting back to being  a free country again and having civil libertys as well honored.

That all changed with Reagan and with every president since him,they all turned it up a notch what he got started.he was the original grandfather of all these presidents since him taking us down that path towards a facist dictatership.Like I said before,thats just another example of how when a good president that comes along,he doesnt get to serve in office very long.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1928 the Fed Straggles the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply
> 
> 2008 the Federal government entities Freddie and Fannie were the binary black holes at the epicenter of the mortgage meltdown, demanding they be fed all the subprime paper they could devour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you
> 
> 
> The Money Supply and Consumer Price Index (CPI)
> Before and During the Great Depression Years
> 
> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm
> 
> 
> 1/3rdc  huh? lol
> 
> US Money Supply M2 (USCB) 1925-1939 - US Stuck on Stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
> 
> 
> The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
> 
> run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
> 
> 
> Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs.
> 
> 
> Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> Bill Black went through what AEI said about the GSEs during the 2000s and it is the same thing  that they were blocking subprime loans from being made. In the words of Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
> 
> 
> 
> I'M SHOCKED YOU DIDN'T BLAME BARNEY OR CLINTON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for showing how the Fed reduced the money supply by 1/3 from 1928-1932
> 
> On 2008 you're as wrong as Krugman
Click to expand...


So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol


WINGNUT! 

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same could be said about Capitalism.  Capitalism failed twice in America- once in 1929 and again in 2008.
> 
> Everything fails eventually.
> 
> Now, here's the problem I see with Communism. If you don't give someone an incentive, they have no reason to try.  That's why Communisim is bad.
> 
> The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't differentiate between positive methods of incentive and negative ones.  You get much richer cheating granny out of her retirement account than you do inventing a product that might make Granny's life a little better.
> 
> I'm all for a system that incentivizes the good and penalizes the bad.
> 
> Bill Gates - invents a product that makes all of our lives better.  Good.
> 
> Mitt Romney- Loots struggling companies for their assets, leaves other people holding the bag.  Bad.
> 
> So which one did you guys run for President in 2012?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.
> 
> When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, *that makes one a sucker.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only we could go back to small government again; a time when most Americans were simple farmers and land was dirt cheap.  It was that damn industrial revolution that changed America, it even changed where people lived and taught them to depend on a job in an industrial city.
> We have an economic depression today and people, go hungry. I say bring back the farm and we won't need big government, it's that simple. Of course we have to make land dirt-cheap again, and maybe change our goal to forty acres and a mule, not computers and air planes?
Click to expand...


To believe government, which consists of liars, frauds, and criminals can regulate and control the American economy and banking system...when history clearly reveals they CAN'T, is pure foolishness.

The problem is government intervention.  The American government has been intervening in the economy since the development of the railroads...and what a boondoggle that was like all things done by government.

Free market capitalism is merely allowing the people to freely exchange goods and services without government corruption, favoritism, and control.  Simple and it works well.  

Anyone who blames Capitalism for our economic problems, clearly is uninformed and likely duped by the progressive establishment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you
> 
> 
> The Money Supply and Consumer Price Index (CPI)
> Before and During the Great Depression Years
> 
> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm
> 
> 
> 1/3rdc  huh? lol
> 
> US Money Supply M2 (USCB) 1925-1939 - US Stuck on Stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
> 
> 
> The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
> 
> run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
> 
> 
> Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs.
> 
> 
> Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> Bill Black went through what AEI said about the GSEs during the 2000s and it is the same thing  that they were blocking subprime loans from being made. In the words of Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
> 
> 
> 
> I'M SHOCKED YOU DIDN'T BLAME BARNEY OR CLINTON
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing how the Fed reduced the money supply by 1/3 from 1928-1932
> 
> On 2008 you're as wrong as Krugman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!
Click to expand...


Sucking 1/3 of the money supply out of the system caused the Great Depression.

Did you think that the stock market was the one and only factor?

Stop reading Krugman


----------



## Uncensored2008

9/11 inside job said:


> Uncensored is a disinfo agent.He should change his user name to CENSORED because he beats the drums of the governments version of events all the time no matter how absurd they are.



ROFL

The feral baboon is promoting a totalitarian system, stupid. Are you too stupid to grasp that the left seeks Soviet style authoritarianism under a dictator who is unconstrained by the Constitution?

Look, you're insane, I get it, but are you stupid as well?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!



Is that what BOOOOOSSSSHHHH did, Comrade Monkey?


Gee, it looks more like Bush tried to stop it, and your fellow Communist, Barney Frank led the campaign to keep it going.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what BOOOOOSSSSHHHH did, Comrade Monkey?
> 
> 
> Gee, it looks more like Bush tried to stop it, and your fellow Communist, Barney Frank led the campaign to keep it going.
Click to expand...

Progressives are pathological liars and economic sociopaths


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.
> 
> When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, *that makes one a sucker.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only we could go back to small government again; a time when most Americans were simple farmers and land was dirt cheap.  It was that damn industrial revolution that changed America, it even changed where people lived and taught them to depend on a job in an industrial city.
> We have an economic depression today and people, go hungry. I say bring back the farm and we won't need big government, it's that simple. Of course we have to make land dirt-cheap again, and maybe change our goal to forty acres and a mule, not computers and air planes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To believe government, which consists of liars, frauds, and criminals can regulate and control the American economy and banking system...when history clearly reveals they CAN'T, is pure foolishness.
> 
> The problem is government intervention.  The American government has been intervening in the economy since the development of the railroads...and what a boondoggle that was like all things done by government.
> 
> Free market capitalism is merely allowing the people to freely exchange goods and services without government corruption, favoritism, and control.  Simple and it works well.
> 
> Anyone who blames Capitalism for our economic problems, clearly is uninformed and likely duped by the progressive establishment.
Click to expand...


The government under George Washington was involved in the economy as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution. The problem with capitalism is the difficulty of keeping it capitalistic. As soon as government corrects one distortion to capitalism the capitalists find another way to distort it.


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again...blaming capitalism, when the fault clearly lays with the very thing you love...big government.
> 
> When one blames something that is not at fault, while ignoring the true culprit and then believing the true culprit is not only blameless, but can actually be the solution, *that makes one a sucker.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only we could go back to small government again; a time when most Americans were simple farmers and land was dirt cheap.  It was that damn industrial revolution that changed America, it even changed where people lived and taught them to depend on a job in an industrial city.
> We have an economic depression today and people, go hungry. I say bring back the farm and we won't need big government, it's that simple. Of course we have to make land dirt-cheap again, and maybe change our goal to forty acres and a mule, not computers and air planes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To believe government, which consists of liars, frauds, and criminals can regulate and control the American economy and banking system...when history clearly reveals they CAN'T, is pure foolishness.
> 
> The problem is government intervention.  The American government has been intervening in the economy since the development of the railroads...and what a boondoggle that was like all things done by government.
> 
> Free market capitalism is merely allowing the people to freely exchange goods and services without government corruption, favoritism, and control.  Simple and it works well.
> 
> Anyone who blames Capitalism for our economic problems, clearly is uninformed and likely duped by the progressive establishment.
Click to expand...



More CRAP from wingnuts who don't have a clue. Name the place that uses your libertarian crap? EVER?  lol

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world.   Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

    protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 18611932) and through subsidies (especially 193270)

    government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

    a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders


American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




 Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress




Alan Greenspan:

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing how the Fed reduced the money supply by 1/3 from 1928-1932
> 
> On 2008 you're as wrong as Krugman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sucking 1/3 of the money supply out of the system caused the Great Depression.
> 
> Did you think that the stock market was the one and only factor?
> 
> Stop reading Krugman
Click to expand...




LOOK AT THIS CHART BUBBA







NOW WHEN DID THE DEPRESSION START? LOL



 It was not just one factor, but instead a combination of domestic and worldwide conditions that led to the Great Depression.

1. Stock Market Crash of 1929

2. Bank Failures

Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures.

3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board

Great Depression - Top Five Causes of the Great Depression



Essentially what happened in the 1920's was that there was an oversupply of goods.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what BOOOOOSSSSHHHH did, Comrade Monkey?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Gee, it looks more like Bush tried to stop it, and your fellow Communist, Barney Frank led the campaign to keep it going.
Click to expand...




Barney Frank? Minority member of the GOP MAJORITY HOUSE (LIKE TODAY)? What super powers did he have again?


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

2004 Republican Convention:

    Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
    ...

    Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

    (APPLAUSE)

    Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.

Q Why would Bushs regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his Ownership Society programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bushs regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


June 17, 2004


(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what BOOOOOSSSSHHHH did, Comrade Monkey?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Gee, it looks more like Bush tried to stop it, and your fellow Communist, Barney Frank led the campaign to keep it going.
Click to expand...




BUSH TRIED TO STOP IT? Let me guess, he went to the GOP CONGRESS 17 TIMES? LOL'


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R) , now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.


Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress



One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sucking 1/3 of the money supply out of the system caused the Great Depression.
> 
> Did you think that the stock market was the one and only factor?
> 
> Stop reading Krugman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT THIS CHART BUBBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOW WHEN DID THE DEPRESSION START? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> It was not just one factor, but instead a combination of domestic and worldwide conditions that led to the Great Depression.
> 
> 1. Stock Market Crash of 1929
> 
> 2. Bank Failures
> 
> Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures.
> 
> 3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board
> 
> Great Depression - Top Five Causes of the Great Depression
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially what happened in the 1920's was that there was an oversupply of goods.
Click to expand...


There was no "over supply of good" We had 2 transformational technologies sweeping the nation in the 1920's: electricity and mass production. Moreover we had a President, the greatest of the 20th Century who was disciplined enough to keep the fuck out of the way: Calvin Coolidge.

You posted a chart that backs my statement that the Fed strangled the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply.  Thanks


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So reducing it in 1928-1932 cased the stock market to crash in 1929? lol
> 
> 
> WINGNUT!
> 
> WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2008, ONE BUSH IGNORED AND CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what BOOOOOSSSSHHHH did, Comrade Monkey?
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Gee, it looks more like Bush tried to stop it, and your fellow Communist, Barney Frank led the campaign to keep it going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives are pathological liars and economic sociopaths
Click to expand...


Weird, an out of context vid from 2004 talking about the GSE's ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 means what again?


BUSH TRIED TO STOP IT? LOL



June 17, 2004

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan 

Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.



From Bush's Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom

2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis

4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


MY FAV

AEI's Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.





Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture


The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession


Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie


The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye




Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what BOOOOOSSSSHHHH did, Comrade Monkey?
> 
> Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube
> 
> Gee, it looks more like Bush tried to stop it, and your fellow Communist, Barney Frank led the campaign to keep it going.
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives are pathological liars and economic sociopaths
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, an out of context vid from 2004 talking about the GSE's ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 means what again?
> 
> 
> BUSH TRIED TO STOP IT? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.
> 
> 
> 
> From Bush's Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> AEI's Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
Click to expand...


LOL!!!

OMFG You bolded one of the stupidest things I've ever heard!



Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie

Say what?????????????????

What do you think "No Income, No Asset" loans were?

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/ecaf_2077.pdf


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sucking 1/3 of the money supply out of the system caused the Great Depression.
> 
> Did you think that the stock market was the one and only factor?
> 
> Stop reading Krugman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT THIS CHART BUBBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOW WHEN DID THE DEPRESSION START? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> It was not just one factor, but instead a combination of domestic and worldwide conditions that led to the Great Depression.
> 
> 1. Stock Market Crash of 1929
> 
> 2. Bank Failures
> 
> Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures.
> 
> 3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board
> 
> Great Depression - Top Five Causes of the Great Depression
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially what happened in the 1920's was that there was an oversupply of goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no "over supply of good" We had 2 transformational technologies sweeping the nation in the 1920's: electricity and mass production. Moreover we had a President, the greatest of the 20th Century who was disciplined enough to keep the fuck out of the way: Calvin Coolidge.
> 
> You posted a chart that backs my statement that the Fed strangled the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply.  Thanks
Click to expand...




Yeah, the fed listened to conservatives and withdrew money AFTER the crash, get off AEI talking points and grow a brain



Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. Lowering taxes and created an oversupply (BOOM) in the economy that went primarily to the top 1%? lol



The main cause for the GOP great depression was the combination of the  unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the stock market speculation that took place 


From  1929 to 1933, production at the nations factories, mines, and utilities fell by over 50%

Real disposable income dropped by over a quarter


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Barney Frank? Minority member of the GOP MAJORITY HOUSE (LIKE TODAY)? What super powers did he have again?



I realize that you are a feral baboon. You cut and paste from the hate sites with no grasp at all as to the meaning of the idiotic shit you post.






I let most of the idiotic shit you post go. You are not the first to ignorantly post manipulated and openly fraudulent FRED graphs off of ThinkProgress and the other hate sites.

Honestly, you damage the left with your stupidity, so I prefer to let you mindlessly fling shit.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives are pathological liars and economic sociopaths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, an out of context vid from 2004 talking about the GSE's ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 means what again?
> 
> 
> BUSH TRIED TO STOP IT? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.
> 
> 
> 
> From Bush's Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> AEI's Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> OMFG You bolded one of the stupidest things I've ever heard!
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> Say what?????????????????
> 
> What do you think "No Income, No Asset" loans were?
> 
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/ecaf_2077.pdf
Click to expand...




Got it, you'll stick with RIGHT WING LIES


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. 



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOOK AT THIS CHART BUBBA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOW WHEN DID THE DEPRESSION START? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> It was not just one factor, but instead a combination of domestic and worldwide conditions that led to the Great Depression.
> 
> 1. Stock Market Crash of 1929
> 
> 2. Bank Failures
> 
> Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures.
> 
> 3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board
> 
> Great Depression - Top Five Causes of the Great Depression
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially what happened in the 1920's was that there was an oversupply of goods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "over supply of good" We had 2 transformational technologies sweeping the nation in the 1920's: electricity and mass production. Moreover we had a President, the greatest of the 20th Century who was disciplined enough to keep the fuck out of the way: Calvin Coolidge.
> 
> You posted a chart that backs my statement that the Fed strangled the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply.  Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the fed listened to conservatives and withdrew money AFTER the crash, get off AEI talking points and grow a brain
> 
> 
> 
> Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. Lowering taxes and created an oversupply (BOOM) in the economy that went primarily to the top 1%? lol
> 
> 
> The main cause for the GOP great depression was the combination of the  unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the stock market speculation that took place
> 
> 
> From  1929 to 1933, production at the nations factories, mines, and utilities fell by over 50%
> 
> Real disposable income dropped by over a quarter
Click to expand...


Hoover and Coolidge has almost NOTHING in common as executives.

Look, you clearly don;t know dick about any of this so I'm going to save the electrons talking to you.

On the one hand I say that the Fed cut the money supply and you keep posting charts and facts that back that up....but you keep drawing the opposite conclusion.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank? Minority member of the GOP MAJORITY HOUSE (LIKE TODAY)? What super powers did he have again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you are a feral baboon. You cut and paste from the hate sites with no grasp at all as to the meaning of the idiotic shit you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I let most of the idiotic shit you post go. You are not the first to ignorantly post manipulated and openly fraudulent FRED graphs off of ThinkProgress and the other hate sites.
> 
> Honestly, you damage the left with your stupidity, so I prefer to let you mindlessly fling shit.
Click to expand...




Got it, like mosr conservatives, you don't want FACTS to get in your way...


Testimony from Ws Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation of the GSEs 2004


Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.


THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.


BARNEY HUH?  LOL


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no "over supply of good" We had 2 transformational technologies sweeping the nation in the 1920's: electricity and mass production. Moreover we had a President, the greatest of the 20th Century who was disciplined enough to keep the fuck out of the way: Calvin Coolidge.
> 
> You posted a chart that backs my statement that the Fed strangled the US Economy nearly to death by withdrawing 1/3 of the money supply.  Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the fed listened to conservatives and withdrew money AFTER the crash, get off AEI talking points and grow a brain
> 
> 
> 
> Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. Lowering taxes and created an oversupply (BOOM) in the economy that went primarily to the top 1%? lol
> 
> 
> The main cause for the GOP great depression was the combination of the  unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the stock market speculation that took place
> 
> 
> From  1929 to 1933, production at the nations factories, mines, and utilities fell by over 50%
> 
> Real disposable income dropped by over a quarter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hoover and Coolidge has almost NOTHING in common as executives.
> 
> Look, you clearly don;t know dick about any of this so I'm going to save the electrons talking to you.
> 
> On the one hand I say that the Fed cut the money supply and you keep posting charts and facts that back that up....but you keep drawing the opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...




Reading comprehension issues huh  Bubba?

"Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. "

You mean conservative policies caused the GOP great depression and conservative policy withdrawing money supply AFTER entering it, didn't help? I agree.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives are pathological liars and economic sociopaths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, an out of context vid from 2004 talking about the GSE's ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 means what again?
> 
> 
> BUSH TRIED TO STOP IT? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.
> 
> 
> 
> From Bush's Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> AEI's Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> OMFG You bolded one of the stupidest things I've ever heard!
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> Say what?????????????????
> 
> What do you think "No Income, No Asset" loans were?
> 
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/ecaf_2077.pdf
Click to expand...




NINJA?

LOL, NOT BACKED BY F/F


Fannie and Freddie were not leaders in share of low income lending. The growth of the subprime market caused the GSEs mortgage portfolio to lag the market with respect to loans made to lower income borrowers, minorities, as well as loans made in underserved areas targeted by HUD (Case, Gillen, & Wachter, 2002).


The purpose of HUDs 2004 (BOOOOSSSHHHH) affordable housing goals was to close the gap so that by 2008 [GSE purchases] would equal the projected shares of goal - qualifying units financed in the primary mortgage market.





The dramatic growth in PLS (NOT F/F)  issuance was the capital markets manifestation of the increase in the origination of nontraditional mortgage products outside of the GSE channel. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nonprime mortgage loans (subprime plus Alt-A) accounted for 34% of the overall mortgage market in 2006. From 2001 to 2005, the dollar volume of subprime mortgages increased from $100 billion to $600 billion, while Alt - A mortgages grew from $25 billion to $400 billion over roughly the same period

http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the fed listened to conservatives and withdrew money AFTER the crash, get off AEI talking points and grow a brain
> 
> 
> 
> Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. Lowering taxes and created an oversupply (BOOM) in the economy that went primarily to the top 1%? lol
> 
> 
> The main cause for the GOP great depression was the combination of the  unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the stock market speculation that took place
> 
> 
> From  1929 to 1933, production at the nations factories, mines, and utilities fell by over 50%
> 
> Real disposable income dropped by over a quarter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hoover and Coolidge has almost NOTHING in common as executives.
> 
> Look, you clearly don;t know dick about any of this so I'm going to save the electrons talking to you.
> 
> On the one hand I say that the Fed cut the money supply and you keep posting charts and facts that back that up....but you keep drawing the opposite conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension issues huh  Bubba?
> 
> "Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. "
> 
> You mean conservative policies caused the GOP great depression and conservative policy withdrawing money supply AFTER entering it, didn't help? I agree.
Click to expand...


How did Coolidge cause any crash?


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoover and Coolidge has almost NOTHING in common as executives.
> 
> Look, you clearly don;t know dick about any of this so I'm going to save the electrons talking to you.
> 
> On the one hand I say that the Fed cut the money supply and you keep posting charts and facts that back that up....but you keep drawing the opposite conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension issues huh  Bubba?
> 
> "Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. "
> 
> You mean conservative policies caused the GOP great depression and conservative policy withdrawing money supply AFTER entering it, didn't help? I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Coolidge cause any crash?
Click to expand...




Although the public liked and admired Calvin Coolidge during his tenure, the Great Depression that began in 1929 seriously eroded his reputation and changed public opinion about his policies. Many linked the nation's economic collapse to Coolidge's policy decisions. His failure to aid the depressed agricultural sector seems shortsighted, as nearly five thousand rural banks in the Midwest and South shut their doors in bankruptcy while many thousands of farmers lost their lands. His tax cuts contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and the overproduction of goods. Many Americans were deeply in debt for having purchased consumer goods on easy installment credit terms.


American President: Calvin Coolidge: Impact and Legacy

LIKE Reagan ignoring the S&L regulator warnings that started in 1984 and Bush ignoring FBI warnings that started in 2004, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't or it's regulators and are later shocked their POLICIES don't work except for a few who extracted wealth out of their bubbles!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird, an out of context vid from 2004 talking about the GSE's ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 means what again?
> 
> 
> BUSH TRIED TO STOP IT? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.
> 
> 
> 
> From Bush's Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> AEI's Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> OMFG You bolded one of the stupidest things I've ever heard!
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> Say what?????????????????
> 
> What do you think "No Income, No Asset" loans were?
> 
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/ecaf_2077.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NINJA?
> 
> LOL, NOT BACKED BY F/F
> 
> 
> Fannie and Freddie were not leaders in share of low income lending. The growth of the subprime market caused the GSEs mortgage portfolio to lag the market with respect to loans made to lower income borrowers, minorities, as well as loans made in underserved areas targeted by HUD (Case, Gillen, & Wachter, 2002).
> 
> 
> The purpose of HUDs 2004 (BOOOOSSSHHHH) affordable housing goals was to close the gap so that by 2008 [GSE purchases] would equal the projected shares of goal - qualifying units financed in the primary mortgage market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dramatic growth in PLS (NOT F/F)  issuance was the capital markets manifestation of the increase in the origination of nontraditional mortgage products outside of the GSE channel. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nonprime mortgage loans (subprime plus Alt-A) accounted for 34% of the overall mortgage market in 2006. From 2001 to 2005, the dollar volume of subprime mortgages increased from $100 billion to $600 billion, while Alt - A mortgages grew from $25 billion to $400 billion over roughly the same period
> 
> http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf
Click to expand...


Ohh, I get it. Wink Wink.

You're on the Koch Brothers RDean Program of paying poster to make Liberals look as dumb as humanly possible.

LOL

OK, I won't tell the other posters.

LOL

Well played, Sir!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension issues huh  Bubba?
> 
> "Harding/Coolidge's nonsense CAUSED the crash dumbass. "
> 
> You mean conservative policies caused the GOP great depression and conservative policy withdrawing money supply AFTER entering it, didn't help? I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Coolidge cause any crash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the public liked and admired Calvin Coolidge during his tenure, the Great Depression that began in 1929 seriously eroded his reputation and changed public opinion about his policies. Many linked the nation's economic collapse to Coolidge's policy decisions. His failure to aid the depressed agricultural sector seems shortsighted, as nearly five thousand rural banks in the Midwest and South shut their doors in bankruptcy while many thousands of farmers lost their lands. His tax cuts contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and the overproduction of goods. Many Americans were deeply in debt for having purchased consumer goods on easy installment credit terms.
> 
> 
> American President: Calvin Coolidge: Impact and Legacy
> 
> LIKE Reagan ignoring the S&L regulator warnings that started in 1984 and Bush ignoring FBI warnings that started in 2004, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't or it's regulators and are later shocked their POLICIES don't work except for a few who extracted wealth out of their bubbles!
Click to expand...


When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> OMFG You bolded one of the stupidest things I've ever heard!
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> Say what?????????????????
> 
> What do you think "No Income, No Asset" loans were?
> 
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/ecaf_2077.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NINJA?
> 
> LOL, NOT BACKED BY F/F
> 
> 
> Fannie and Freddie were not leaders in share of low income lending. The growth of the subprime market caused the GSEs mortgage portfolio to lag the market with respect to loans made to lower income borrowers, minorities, as well as loans made in underserved areas targeted by HUD (Case, Gillen, & Wachter, 2002).
> 
> 
> The purpose of HUDs 2004 (BOOOOSSSHHHH) affordable housing goals was to close the gap so that by 2008 [GSE purchases] would equal the projected shares of goal - qualifying units financed in the primary mortgage market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dramatic growth in PLS (NOT F/F)  issuance was the capital markets manifestation of the increase in the origination of nontraditional mortgage products outside of the GSE channel. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nonprime mortgage loans (subprime plus Alt-A) accounted for 34% of the overall mortgage market in 2006. From 2001 to 2005, the dollar volume of subprime mortgages increased from $100 billion to $600 billion, while Alt - A mortgages grew from $25 billion to $400 billion over roughly the same period
> 
> http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohh, I get it. Wink Wink.
> 
> You're on the Koch Brothers RDean Program of paying poster to make Liberals look as dumb as humanly possible.
> 
> LOL
> 
> OK, I won't tell the other posters.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Well played, Sir!
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Coolidge cause any crash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the public liked and admired Calvin Coolidge during his tenure, the Great Depression that began in 1929 seriously eroded his reputation and changed public opinion about his policies. Many linked the nation's economic collapse to Coolidge's policy decisions. His failure to aid the depressed agricultural sector seems shortsighted, as nearly five thousand rural banks in the Midwest and South shut their doors in bankruptcy while many thousands of farmers lost their lands. His tax cuts contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and the overproduction of goods. Many Americans were deeply in debt for having purchased consumer goods on easy installment credit terms.
> 
> 
> American President: Calvin Coolidge: Impact and Legacy
> 
> LIKE Reagan ignoring the S&L regulator warnings that started in 1984 and Bush ignoring FBI warnings that started in 2004, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't or it's regulators and are later shocked their POLICIES don't work except for a few who extracted wealth out of their bubbles!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
Click to expand...


Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol 


Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the public liked and admired Calvin Coolidge during his tenure, the Great Depression that began in 1929 seriously eroded his reputation and changed public opinion about his policies. Many linked the nation's economic collapse to Coolidge's policy decisions. His failure to aid the depressed agricultural sector seems shortsighted, as nearly five thousand rural banks in the Midwest and South shut their doors in bankruptcy while many thousands of farmers lost their lands. His tax cuts contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and the overproduction of goods. Many Americans were deeply in debt for having purchased consumer goods on easy installment credit terms.
> 
> 
> American President: Calvin Coolidge: Impact and Legacy
> 
> LIKE Reagan ignoring the S&L regulator warnings that started in 1984 and Bush ignoring FBI warnings that started in 2004, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't or it's regulators and are later shocked their POLICIES don't work except for a few who extracted wealth out of their bubbles!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit strange then that the very simple minded are trying to blame Reagan for a crash 3 president and 20 years after he left the White House?

It is indeed a very strange train of thought. I trust you agree.


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it a bit strange then that the very simple minded are trying to blame Reagan for a crash 3 president and 20 years after he left the White House?
> 
> It is indeed a very strange train of thought. I trust you agree.
Click to expand...




Really? Is that what was posited? NOPE, Reagan was responsible for the S&L crisis when his regulator, Mr Gray  STARTED warning him in 1984 of problems with the deregulation and oversight of the S&L industry. It's been estimated that 90%+ of the S&L crisis would had been stopped, IF Reagan 'believed in' Gov't over the 'free markets'. 



Just like Bush ignoring the FBI warnings that STARTED in  2004 that said there was an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud, he gutted them instead and continued his cheer leading the Banksters! 


Weird, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't then are shocked the markets run amok (1929 anyone?)....


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a bit strange then that the very simple minded are trying to blame Reagan for a crash 3 president and 20 years after he left the White House?
> 
> It is indeed a very strange train of thought. I trust you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Is that what was posited? NOPE, Reagan was responsible for the S&L crisis when his regulator, Mr Gray  STARTED warning him in 1984 of problems with the deregulation and oversight of the S&L industry. It's been estimated that 90%+ of the S&L crisis would had been stopped, IF Reagan 'believed in' Gov't over the 'free markets'.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Bush ignoring the FBI warnings that STARTED in  2004 that said there was an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud, he gutted them instead and continued his cheer leading the Banksters!
> 
> 
> Weird, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't then are shocked the markets run amok (1929 anyone?)....
Click to expand...

As I said, blaming Reagan for 2008 is a very train of thought, and apparently hopelessly convoluted. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but even you, in your throes of pathological reasoning, must register some irony.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the public liked and admired Calvin Coolidge during his tenure, the Great Depression that began in 1929 seriously eroded his reputation and changed public opinion about his policies. Many linked the nation's economic collapse to Coolidge's policy decisions. His failure to aid the depressed agricultural sector seems shortsighted, as nearly five thousand rural banks in the Midwest and South shut their doors in bankruptcy while many thousands of farmers lost their lands. His tax cuts contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and the overproduction of goods. Many Americans were deeply in debt for having purchased consumer goods on easy installment credit terms.
> 
> 
> American President: Calvin Coolidge: Impact and Legacy
> 
> LIKE Reagan ignoring the S&L regulator warnings that started in 1984 and Bush ignoring FBI warnings that started in 2004, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't or it's regulators and are later shocked their POLICIES don't work except for a few who extracted wealth out of their bubbles!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
Click to expand...


The Fed. You keep posting the evidence that indicts them, then you accuse Coolidge.

Now that I know you're paid to make Liberals look like imbeciles, it's funny


----------



## gipper

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fed. You keep posting the evidence that indicts them, then you accuse Coolidge.
> 
> Now that I know you're paid to make Liberals look like imbeciles, it's funny
Click to expand...


They like to blame R presidents, but then a funny thing happens.  They are incapable of blaming D presidents.

Idiotic partisan fools.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

gipper said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed. You keep posting the evidence that indicts them, then you accuse Coolidge.
> 
> Now that I know you're paid to make Liberals look like imbeciles, it's funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They like to blame R presidents, but then a funny thing happens.  They are incapable of blaming D presidents.
> 
> Idiotic partisan fools.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Once I realized that Dad gets paid to make Liberals look like morons, it's so much easier to understand his "ideas"


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a bit strange then that the very simple minded are trying to blame Reagan for a crash 3 president and 20 years after he left the White House?
> 
> It is indeed a very strange train of thought. I trust you agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Is that what was posited? NOPE, Reagan was responsible for the S&L crisis when his regulator, Mr Gray  STARTED warning him in 1984 of problems with the deregulation and oversight of the S&L industry. It's been estimated that 90%+ of the S&L crisis would had been stopped, IF Reagan 'believed in' Gov't over the 'free markets'.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Bush ignoring the FBI warnings that STARTED in  2004 that said there was an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud, he gutted them instead and continued his cheer leading the Banksters!
> 
> 
> Weird, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't then are shocked the markets run amok (1929 anyone?)....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said, blaming Reagan for 2008 is a very train of thought, and apparently hopelessly convoluted. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but even you, in your throes of pathological reasoning, must register some irony.
Click to expand...




Yes, YOU have a hopelessly convoluted mind to not understand Reagan fault with the S&L crisis and Dubya's wth the Dubya subprime crisis both related to ideology


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fed. You keep posting the evidence that indicts them, then you accuse Coolidge.
> 
> Now that I know you're paid to make Liberals look like imbeciles, it's funny
Click to expand...



Got it, another conservative who can't be honest to save his life and can't use reason and logic


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed. You keep posting the evidence that indicts them, then you accuse Coolidge.
> 
> Now that I know you're paid to make Liberals look like imbeciles, it's funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They like to blame R presidents, but then a funny thing happens.  They are incapable of blaming D presidents.
> 
> Idiotic partisan fools.
Click to expand...


Project much? WHAT of what I posted in not true?

Reagan ignored regulator warning from Mr Gray that started in 1984

Dubya not only ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004, he gutted the FBI white collar crimes y 1,800+ agents, fought all 50 states on who 'regulated' predatory lenders and allowed the 5 investment banks to more than triple their LEVERAGE (cheap money flooded the markets)


 When a Dem does stuff wrong, like Clinton signing the GOP bill NAFTA, that Reagan introduced the day he ran for Prez in 1979,  I'll not defend them!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what BOOOOOSSSSHHHH did, Comrade Monkey?
> 
> Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube
> 
> Gee, it looks more like Bush tried to stop it, and your fellow Communist, Barney Frank led the campaign to keep it going.
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives are pathological liars and economic sociopaths
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird, an out of context vid from 2004 talking about the GSE's ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 means what again?
> 
> 
> BUSH TRIED TO STOP IT? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> June 17, 2004
> 
> Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
> 
> Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday
> 
> 
> Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.
> 
> 
> 
> From Bush's Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)
> 
> 
> 1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom
> 
> 2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis
> 
> 4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
> 
> 
> MY FAV
> 
> AEI's Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession
> 
> 
> Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie
> 
> 
> The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
> 
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
Click to expand...


thats agent censored for ya.Isnt he amusing with his lies that Bush tried to stop it.comedy gold.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank? Minority member of the GOP MAJORITY HOUSE (LIKE TODAY)? What super powers did he have again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you are a feral baboon. You cut and paste from the hate sites with no grasp at all as to the meaning of the idiotic shit you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I let most of the idiotic shit you post go. You are not the first to ignorantly post manipulated and openly fraudulent FRED graphs off of ThinkProgress and the other hate sites.
> 
> Honestly, you damage the left with your stupidity, so I prefer to let you mindlessly fling shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, like mosr conservatives, you don't want FACTS to get in your way...
> 
> 
> Testimony from Ws Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation of the GSEs 2004
> 
> 
> Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
> 
> Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
> 
> 
> THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
> 
> - THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
> 
> 
> 
> Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
> 
> A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
> 
> From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
> 
> The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
> 
> 
> BARNEY HUH?  LOL
Click to expand...


Censored and crusader retard defintetly drink too much of this stuff alright.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 Paid CIA Disinformation Agent here to protect the legacy of his Boss HW


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the public liked and admired Calvin Coolidge during his tenure, the Great Depression that began in 1929 seriously eroded his reputation and changed public opinion about his policies. Many linked the nation's economic collapse to Coolidge's policy decisions. His failure to aid the depressed agricultural sector seems shortsighted, as nearly five thousand rural banks in the Midwest and South shut their doors in bankruptcy while many thousands of farmers lost their lands. His tax cuts contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and the overproduction of goods. Many Americans were deeply in debt for having purchased consumer goods on easy installment credit terms.
> 
> 
> American President: Calvin Coolidge: Impact and Legacy
> 
> LIKE Reagan ignoring the S&L regulator warnings that started in 1984 and Bush ignoring FBI warnings that started in 2004, we elect those that don't 'believe in' Gov't or it's regulators and are later shocked their POLICIES don't work except for a few who extracted wealth out of their bubbles!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
Click to expand...


Dude crusader retard IS correct that Hoover is to blame for that.Calvin Coolidge was our last decent republican president we had.the last one who wasnt corrupt and evil who served the people. Crusader retard is right about that.he just lives in denial that Reagan at the time was the most corrupt president we ever had till the rest of them afterwards started topping him and I see you STILL havent watch that video The Obama deception yet.  Looks like I am going tohave to ask THE LIQ since i cant get an answer from you on that,

Hoover is indeed to blame for that indeed..Harding and Coolidge had us on the right track and Hoover came and wrecked the economy.thats a historic fact.Every president since Hoover other than JFK was a puppet for the bankers and served them. american became a facist dictatership once Hoover got in office.we never recoverd after that,


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fed. You keep posting the evidence that indicts them, then you accuse Coolidge.
> 
> Now that I know you're paid to make Liberals look like imbeciles, it's funny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They like to blame R presidents, but then a funny thing happens.  They are incapable of blaming D presidents.
> 
> Idiotic partisan fools.
Click to expand...

why you would even consider talking to crusader retard about that is beyond me.You are talking to a troll who ignores facts that reagan  was a mass murderer, betrayed the middle class and had nothing to do with the fall of the soviet union and worships the CIA's version of events about that.
and thats all just for starters on facts he ignores. 

his giirfriend political chic is just the oppostite,SHE blames everything on the demos and is incapable of putting blame on the R presidents for ANYTHING..


----------



## LA RAM FAN

at 6:14 pm today,someone farted in here.


----------



## Dad2three

9/11 inside job said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Coolidge's term end, Rdean's Dad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude crusader retard IS correct that Hoover is to blame for that.Calvin Coolidge was our last decent republican president we had.the last one who wasnt corrupt and evil who served the people. Crusader retard is right about that.he just lives in denial that Reagan at the time was the most corrupt president we ever had till the rest of them afterwards started topping him and I see you STILL havent watch that video The Obama deception yet.  Looks like I am going tohave to ask THE LIQ since i cant get an answer from you on that,
> 
> Hoover is indeed to blame for that indeed..Harding and Coolidge had us on the right track and Hoover came and wrecked the economy.thats a historic fact.Every president since Hoover other than JFK was a puppet for the bankers and served them. american became a facist dictatership once Hoover got in office.we never recoverd after that,
Click to expand...


So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Hoover indeed uis the one to blame for the recession.Harding and Coolidge got us on the right path after wilson betrayed americans with his blessing of the federal reserves existance.Harding and Coolidge reversed the travesty temporaily that wilson started athen Hoover came in and american has never bene the same since. Coolidge was our last GREAT presidnet we had,Unlike reagan,he actually served the people instead of the bankers and wasnt a mass murderer.

proof is in the pudding.america ceased to exist once Hoover got in.

What were President Calvin Coolidge's accomplishments?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude crusader retard IS correct that Hoover is to blame for that.Calvin Coolidge was our last decent republican president we had.the last one who wasnt corrupt and evil who served the people. Crusader retard is right about that.he just lives in denial that Reagan at the time was the most corrupt president we ever had till the rest of them afterwards started topping him and I see you STILL havent watch that video The Obama deception yet.  Looks like I am going tohave to ask THE LIQ since i cant get an answer from you on that,
> 
> Hoover is indeed to blame for that indeed..Harding and Coolidge had us on the right track and Hoover came and wrecked the economy.thats a historic fact.Every president since Hoover other than JFK was a puppet for the bankers and served them. american became a facist dictatership once Hoover got in office.we never recoverd after that,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?
Click to expand...


you said it yourself,in 8 months before it all happend,plenty of time to orchestrate the events for it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

dude there was a very good reason the twentys were called the roaring twentys.americans prospered under Coolidge and Harding.lol Harding came in and wrecked everything and got us started towards the great depression. as I said before,once harding became president,american became a facist dictatership and has remained one since.The one president we had who tried to do something about it and get us back to the constitution of the united states paid for it on nov 22nd 1963.He was our last GREAT president we had and Coolidge was our last GREAT republican president we had.

the real Herbert Hoover exposed.

The Troubling Legacy of Herbert Hoover

sounds alot like ronald reagan i would say.


----------



## zen

Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies. 

Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.


----------



## Dad2three

zen said:


> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.



I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
Click to expand...


if you vote for EITHER party,thats being brainwashed as well.both are corrupt.its a one party system designed to look like two parties.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude crusader retard IS correct that Hoover is to blame for that.Calvin Coolidge was our last decent republican president we had.the last one who wasnt corrupt and evil who served the people. Crusader retard is right about that.he just lives in denial that Reagan at the time was the most corrupt president we ever had till the rest of them afterwards started topping him and I see you STILL havent watch that video The Obama deception yet.  Looks like I am going tohave to ask THE LIQ since i cant get an answer from you on that,
> 
> Hoover is indeed to blame for that indeed..Harding and Coolidge had us on the right track and Hoover came and wrecked the economy.thats a historic fact.Every president since Hoover other than JFK was a puppet for the bankers and served them. american became a facist dictatership once Hoover got in office.we never recoverd after that,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said it yourself,in 8 months before it all happend,plenty of time to orchestrate the events for it.
Click to expand...


Coolidge orchestrated the Crash?

Is that what you're saying HW?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

zen said:


> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.



yep,so true,you hit the nail on the head.He was the first politican as governor of california to approve abortion.He signed the bill and murdered millions of unborn children.the establishment knew he would be their willing puppet willing to serve them and he did not dissapoint.he wasnt going along with them at first but they made sure that he did go along with them and do their bidding a couple months later after becomING PRESIDENT OF COURSE.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
Click to expand...


LOL!!

Walks in with the "I Used ta be a Republican" Script!!!

Priceless!!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

At 8:57 pm today,someone farted in here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> dude there was a very good reason the twentys were called the roaring twentys.americans prospered under Coolidge and Harding.lol Harding came in and wrecked everything and got us started towards the great depression. as I said before,once harding became president,american became a facist dictatership and has remained one since.The one president we had who tried to do something about it and get us back to the constitution of the united states paid for it on nov 22nd 1963.He was our last GREAT president we had and Coolidge was our last GREAT republican president we had.
> 
> the real Herbert Hoover exposed.
> 
> The Troubling Legacy of Herbert Hoover
> 
> sounds alot like ronald reagan i would say.



Harding? Hoover? Humphrey?


----------



## gipper

Dad2three said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
Click to expand...


Did you then vote Dem?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

gipper said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
Click to expand...


Don't you just love it!  Like he's the first Prog who ever told us that "I use ta be a Republican"


----------



## LA RAM FAN

at 5:31 am today someone farted in here.


----------



## thanatos144

9/11 inside job said:


> at 5:31 am today someone farted in here.



Fuck off child. You to stupid to know what Reagan was like. Run back to your Ron Paul fan club and you can all tell each other how much you hate Jews.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
Click to expand...


 many americans back then voted for him twice.I myself was one as well.matter of fatc just about all the reagan truthtellers that have come on here and exposed his corruption have admitted they voted for him twice as well. 

He was like Clinton,had a charming personanality that made you fall for him.Back then I believed we lived in a free country like so many other sheople did.Back then I didnt have 
people to educate me that both parties are corrupt and that its a one party system.

I had no idea the CIA was such an evil instituion and that they controlled the media.Had we had the internet back then,no way would his atrocities that he committed.would have been able to be covered up for as long as they were.well Iran/contra was still known to them thats why his popularity as president was never very high.but thats about the only one of his scandals we were aware of back then.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Now disinfo agent,zionist jew lover and CIA bandwaggoner thanotos has teamed up with reagan worshipper crausader retard. they hate it the truth about reagan is being exposed so their handlers  keep sending their shills to troll here.they sure expose themselevss the truth hurts how they come on here IMMEDIATELY after a post.


----------



## Meathead

When a full 35% think that Reagan is the best POTUS since WW II, it begs the question of who is trying to revise history.

This is a lost cause.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

^someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan sucked
> 
> Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts
> 
> We&#8217;d been discussing taxes on the air and the fact that Denmark has an average 52 percent income-tax rate. I asked him why people didn&#8217;t revolt at such high taxes, and he smiled and pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid, with a minimum wage that equals roughly $18 per hour. Moreover, what Danes get for their taxes (that we don&#8217;t) is a free college education and free health care, not to mention four weeks of paid vacation each year and notoriety as the happiest nation on earth, according to a major study done by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom.2
> 
> But it was once we were off the air that he made the comment that I found so enlightening.
> 
> &#8220;You Americans are such suckers,&#8221; he said. &#8220;You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don&#8217;t. When working peoples&#8217; taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way&#8212;look at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the opposite of how it works for rich people!&#8221;
> 
> My Danish guest was right. So before we get into the larger consequences of tax increases or tax cuts for the nation&#8217;s economic health, let&#8217;s parse this business about what tax increases or cuts mean for the rich and for the not-so-rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and guess what? your hero Obomination just like every single president since reagan has,has followed his footsteps. every single president since reagan has been more evil and corrupt than the previous one.
> 
> our country was actually a half way decent country with actual freedoms back when carter was in office-the last fairly good president we had who served the people instead of the bankers and the establishment, but it hasnt been ever since Reagan took office since every single president since him has esculated what he got started.
> 
> and thats because whether you realise it or not,its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the american sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.The proof is in the pudding.our last GREAT president,who actually served the people instead of the bankers,paid for that mistake on nov 22nd 1963.
> 
> The president is just a puppet following their orders given to him by the bankers and military industrial complex-whom Eisenhower warned the american people to be aware of in his farewell address  speech.He wasnt being their willing puppet and wasnt doing what they told him to do and he paid the price for it on that date.
> 
> Since then,Carter has been the only decent president we have  had who also served the people instead of the bankers.perfect example of another presidnet who tried to do the right thing and as a result,another perfect example of another good president who did not get to serve in office very long because of that.
> 
> Here is the proof in the pudding that everything that I have said is true.You might actually take the time-"two hours out of your schedule," to watch it.
> 
> Nobody has ever been able to debunk it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw]The Obama Deception HQ Full length version - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dad you never answered my question here which is have you seen this two hour video THE OBAMA DECEPTION? you should watch it because there is one part in there  that refers to JFK and explains in detail with proof contrary to what the reaganut worshippers believe,that JFK was our last GREAT president we had.
> 
> JFK was our last GREAT president we had but carter was our last GOOD president we had.we were actually taking positive steps under carters leadership when he was in office on getting back to being  a free country again and having civil libertys as well honored.
> 
> That all changed with Reagan and with every president since him,they all turned it up a notch what he got started.he was the original grandfather of all these presidents since him taking us down that path towards a facist dictatership.Like I said before,thats just another example of how when a good president that comes along,he doesnt get to serve in office very long.
Click to expand...


Dad since I obviously cant get an answer from you on this video,I'm going to assume you are a fan of Obama? which I fail to understand why since he is a facist dictater who has copied everything that reagan the grandfather of it all got started.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Gipper by chance have YOU seen this video THE OBAMA DECEPTION? Its relevent  to this thread because it documents how JFK was our last great president because he was the last one who served the people instead of the bankers and wasnt a puppet for them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Further proof-a link the reaganut worshippers of course wont look at since it proves theya re loony in all their defenses of him,further proof of the disasterous presidency of ronald reagan.This link proves what i have been saying for YEARS at this site and what I said earlier,that as govenor of california,he signed into law favoring abortion.lol.

Meet RINO Reagan | Crooks and Liars

As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state's abortion laws that "resulted in more than a million abortions." When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he "never seriously pursued" curbing choice.

all he ever did when running for POTUS was give speechs how much he was against it,yet when he became president,he did NOTHING about it just as he did nothing about any of his campaine promises.

ALSO as you can see from that link,what i been saying for YEARS now how all he did was DELAY the collapse of the soviet union instead of being responsible for it,is proven here as well how because while arms reductions did happen during his time,they COULD have been completely disarmed back then but wasnt because he refused to give up on his failed star wars defense program.the collapse of the soviet union did not happen till a couple years later AFTER he was out of office.

At the Reykjavik summit, he and Gorbachev almost agreed to the "zero option" to eliminate both sides' thermonuclear arms. Reagan's unwillingness to give up his cherished missile-defense program doomed the agreement, though the talks did yield the signature arms-reduction pact of his presidency, the 1987 INF treaty.

the reaganut baboon worshippers such as CENSORED,thanotos.meathhead warped brain,can only sling shit in defeat led by their cheerleading ringleader CRUSADER REATARD like the monkey trolls they are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

I mentioned earlier how clinton was like reagan,a great actor who fooled everybody that he was looking out for the best interest of the american people.Reagan had to have given him acting lessons on how to sound sincere and genuine to fool people that you are there to serve them because Clinton was a very good actor in fooling people indeed.

I still laugh at the video that exposed his hypocrisy and what a fradu he was where he was walking out of the funeral for ron brown laughing and having a jolly old good time with some people-which is VERY strange if you are allegedly heart broken over someones death,then we he sees a camera and there filming him,he all of a sudden does a 180 degree turnaround and instantly aleegedly starts crying.comedy gold.

he sure learned well from reagan how to cry on cue.reagan taught him well.


----------



## thanatos144

Paulbots hate Reagan because he proved isolationism is bullshit 

tapatalk post


----------



## CrusaderFrank

...and strategic defense initiative worked.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from the agent  trolls.

like clockwork,they are so easy to predict. their handlers are getting so desperate the truth is being put out by now myself and others,they send them here to shit all over the place like the monkey trolls they are. the truth hurts.


----------



## bendog

Well, SDI worked well enough to not be a failure, but that isn't really the point.  Dante does have a kernel of truth that Reagan's actions really did appall the extreme right and what would be the neocons.  Reagan didn't make any secret that he loathed nuclear weapons.  (that was much of the joke when he said on tv, not knowing the cameras were on, 'the bombing commences in ... minutes.")  

Reagan was a liberal in terms of he shared the founders view that mankind inevitably was in an upward spiral towards personal liberation.  His religious views weren't all that different from Deists.  The notion that freedom was secured via mutually assured destruction of human kind was abhorrent.  But, he was such a staunch anti-communist, the RW didn't go there.  Moreover, Goldwater had been maligned by the Daisy commercial by LBJ.  Frankly, Goldwater was less a menace to unleash the holocaust than LBJ.  

The impact of SDI was that Reagan and Gorby both knew the soviet generals would have to respond to an arms race, and the soviets couldn't afford it.  (Neither could we, but so much)  Whether the damn thing could stop 50-75-90% of warheads wasn't really the point.  The Soviets needed a lot more missles, that was the point.

By the mid 80s it was clear that the Soviet economy wasn't able to allocate capital quickly enough to compete in a post-technological world.  Reagan always distrusted the CIA analysis of their economy.  While the Soviets probably did grow gnp faster than we in the early 60s, there was no way they could compete in 1984.  As the saying went, if they can't provide citizens tampons, they are a third world country with nukes.

So, into his second term, having achieved a fair degree of conventional arms parity, and with a idealist distrust of MAD, and the economic evidence that his faith in neoliberal economics (Thatcherism) was justified, the old guy was a lot freer to be Reagan.  And Dante's right, there were political commentators on the right who weren't as great visionaries as Reagan, who didn't get that.  

But, the economic views of Commanding Heights sort balance out Will and the gang.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...and strategic defense initiative worked.



NOt really. 

Unless by working, you mean making billions for defense contractors for a system that didn't work. 

Heck, they couldn't even knock down slow moving SCUDs in Gulf War I.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -2847 reputation points from JoeB131.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> douchebag
> 
> Regards,
> JoeB131
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.


 Dumb ass shows his ignorance.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and strategic defense initiative worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt really.
> 
> Unless by working, you mean making billions for defense contractors for a system that didn't work.
> 
> Heck, they couldn't even knock down slow moving SCUDs in Gulf War I.
Click to expand...


Keep up on current events, Josef.

News & Views: Missile defense hits its target
By Howard Hurlbut, Guest columnist
POSTED: 07/02/14, 8:45 PM PDT | 0 COMMENTS
A ground-based missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base hit a mock enemy warhead launched from the Marshall Islands last week.

Better than spending over $1 Billion to build the worlds only website that can't tell you when and if someone bought your product


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and strategic defense initiative worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt really.
> 
> Unless by working, you mean making billions for defense contractors for a system that didn't work.
> 
> Heck, they couldn't even knock down slow moving SCUDs in Gulf War I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep up on current events, Josef.
> 
> News & Views: Missile defense hits its target
> By Howard Hurlbut, Guest columnist
> POSTED: 07/02/14, 8:45 PM PDT | 0 COMMENTS
> A ground-based missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base hit a mock enemy warhead launched from the Marshall Islands last week.
> 
> Better than spending over $1 Billion to build the worlds only website that can't tell you when and if someone bought your product
Click to expand...




A ground-based missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base hit a mock enemy warhead launched from the Marshall Islands last week.

*This was the first successful test of the U.S. missile defense system in four attempts dating back to December, 2008*.

Of the 16 tests of this defense system held thus far, eight hit the target and eight missed it.

The system was declared operational 10 years ago and has cost a total of $40 billion. It dates back to President Reagan&#8217;s &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; concept.

The defending missile is supposed to hit the incoming missile in mid-air. Like all the previous tests, this one was carefully staged.

*Those launching the intercepting missile knew the target&#8217;s exact dimensions, its time of launch, its trajectory, and its speed.*

This information would not be available in time of war.

lol

News & Views: Missile defense hits its target


----------



## Dad2three

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and guess what? your hero Obomination just like every single president since reagan has,has followed his footsteps. every single president since reagan has been more evil and corrupt than the previous one.
> 
> our country was actually a half way decent country with actual freedoms back when carter was in office-the last fairly good president we had who served the people instead of the bankers and the establishment, but it hasnt been ever since Reagan took office since every single president since him has esculated what he got started.
> 
> and thats because whether you realise it or not,its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two parties so the american sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.The proof is in the pudding.our last GREAT president,who actually served the people instead of the bankers,paid for that mistake on nov 22nd 1963.
> 
> The president is just a puppet following their orders given to him by the bankers and military industrial complex-whom Eisenhower warned the american people to be aware of in his farewell address  speech.He wasnt being their willing puppet and wasnt doing what they told him to do and he paid the price for it on that date.
> 
> Since then,Carter has been the only decent president we have  had who also served the people instead of the bankers.perfect example of another presidnet who tried to do the right thing and as a result,another perfect example of another good president who did not get to serve in office very long because of that.
> 
> Here is the proof in the pudding that everything that I have said is true.You might actually take the time-"two hours out of your schedule," to watch it.
> 
> Nobody has ever been able to debunk it.
> 
> The Obama Deception HQ Full length version - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad you never answered my question here which is have you seen this two hour video THE OBAMA DECEPTION? you should watch it because there is one part in there  that refers to JFK and explains in detail with proof contrary to what the reaganut worshippers believe,that JFK was our last GREAT president we had.
> 
> JFK was our last GREAT president we had but carter was our last GOOD president we had.we were actually taking positive steps under carters leadership when he was in office on getting back to being  a free country again and having civil libertys as well honored.
> 
> That all changed with Reagan and with every president since him,they all turned it up a notch what he got started.he was the original grandfather of all these presidents since him taking us down that path towards a facist dictatership.Like I said before,thats just another example of how when a good president that comes along,he doesnt get to serve in office very long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dad since I obviously cant get an answer from you on this video,I'm going to assume you are a fan of Obama? which I fail to understand why since he is a facist dictater who has copied everything that reagan the grandfather of it all got started.
Click to expand...



We have 2 choices when voting for Prez, bad and MUCH worse. I tend to vote bad

Do I wish he was a REAL liberal versus second best conservative Prez since Ike (only Bill was better)? Yes


UNTIL WE GET FINANCE REFORM, MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, WE WILL NOT HAVE A 'GOOD CHOICE' TO CHOOSE FROM!


----------



## Dad2three

bendog said:


> Well, SDI worked well enough to not be a failure, but that isn't really the point.  Dante does have a kernel of truth that Reagan's actions really did appall the extreme right and what would be the neocons.  Reagan didn't make any secret that he loathed nuclear weapons.  (that was much of the joke when he said on tv, not knowing the cameras were on, 'the bombing commences in ... minutes.")
> 
> Reagan was a liberal in terms of he shared the founders view that mankind inevitably was in an upward spiral towards personal liberation.  His religious views weren't all that different from Deists.  The notion that freedom was secured via mutually assured destruction of human kind was abhorrent.  But, he was such a staunch anti-communist, the RW didn't go there.  Moreover, Goldwater had been maligned by the Daisy commercial by LBJ.  Frankly, Goldwater was less a menace to unleash the holocaust than LBJ.
> 
> The impact of SDI was that Reagan and Gorby both knew the soviet generals would have to respond to an arms race, and the soviets couldn't afford it.  (Neither could we, but so much)  Whether the damn thing could stop 50-75-90% of warheads wasn't really the point.  The Soviets needed a lot more missles, that was the point.
> 
> By the mid 80s it was clear that the Soviet economy wasn't able to allocate capital quickly enough to compete in a post-technological world.  Reagan always distrusted the CIA analysis of their economy.  While the Soviets probably did grow gnp faster than we in the early 60s, there was no way they could compete in 1984.  As the saying went, if they can't provide citizens tampons, they are a third world country with nukes.
> 
> So, into his second term, having achieved a fair degree of conventional arms parity, and with a idealist distrust of MAD, and the economic evidence that his faith in neoliberal economics (Thatcherism) was justified, the old guy was a lot freer to be Reagan.  And Dante's right, there were political commentators on the right who weren't as great visionaries as Reagan, who didn't get that.
> 
> But, the economic views of Commanding Heights sort balance out Will and the gang.





You meant to say Reagan's (one sided) Keynesian policies where he ramped up spending created an economy that did slightly better than the stagnant 1970's? He did this at the same time he cut revenues to the treasury  and taxes on the rich. Tripled US debt



SDI WORKED? Under Reagan? Got a link?


This was the first successful test of the U.S. missile defense system in four attempts dating back to December, 2008.

Of the 16 tests of this defense system held thus far, eight hit the target and eight missed it.

The system was declared operational 10 years ago and has cost a total of $40 billion. It dates back to President Reagans Star Wars concept.

The defending missile is supposed to hit the incoming missile in mid-air. Like all the previous tests, this one was carefully staged.

Those launching the intercepting missile knew the targets exact dimensions, its time of launch, its trajectory, and its speed.

This information would not be available in time of war.

News & Views: Missile defense hits its target


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you just love it!  Like he's the first Prog who ever told us that "I use ta be a Republican"
Click to expand...


Nah, never stupid enough to be a Repug, just a Reagan Dem till I grew a brain. Ronnie was my first Prez vote, the second one was the last Repug vote I ever made!


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
Click to expand...



Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can

Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and strategic defense initiative worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt really.
> 
> Unless by working, you mean making billions for defense contractors for a system that didn't work.
> 
> Heck, they couldn't even knock down slow moving SCUDs in Gulf War I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep up on current events, Josef.
> 
> News & Views: Missile defense hits its target
> By Howard Hurlbut, Guest columnist
> POSTED: 07/02/14, 8:45 PM PDT | 0 COMMENTS
> A ground-based missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base hit a mock enemy warhead launched from the Marshall Islands last week.
> 
> Better than spending over $1 Billion to build the worlds only website that can't tell you when and if someone bought your product
Click to expand...


YOu mean after 30 years of trying, they managed to knock out a missile where they knew the exact time and trajectory it would be flying under?  

Really? 

This impresses you?  

Because I can't think a real enemy is ever going to be accommodating enough to 

1) Just launch one missile.
2) Tell us which missiles are dummies and which one has the real warhead
3) Tell us exactly what time and flight path their missile is going to take.
4) Not launch preliminary attacks against wherever we will launch the counter-missiles from.


----------



## Meathead

Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.

The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!



Um, no, not really. 

The USSR fell because of the same reason all other empires fall. The ruling nation no longer saw a benefit to having an empire, and the ruled no longer saw a benefit to being ruled.  

But please believe it was because the DoorMat of Europe wanted to throw off the communists for big corporations.


----------



## JoeB131

The USSR did not fall because of SDI, or arming Jihadis in Afghanistan, or because Reagan gave a wall a stern talking to. 

It fell because Poles and East Germans and Hungarians and Khazaks and Uzbeks were just tired of taking shit from Russians, and Russians were getting tired of keeping them in line.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeB131 said:


> The USSR did not fall because of SDI, or arming Jihadis in Afghanistan, or because Reagan gave a wall a stern talking to.
> 
> It fell because Poles and East Germans and Hungarians and Khazaks and Uzbeks were just tired of taking shit from Russians, and Russians were getting tired of keeping them in line.



True. 

In fact, the Soviet Union didn't really 'fall,' it's still very much with us today  it has a different name and is under new(ish) management, but whether Empire, Soviet State, or Federation, the Russian worldview hasn't much changed, nor has it's tactics, goals, or hostility toward, and suspicion of, the West.  

Indeed, it's likely that Reagan's inept, incompetent, and belligerent 'strategy' toward the Soviet Union confirmed Russians' perception of the West, establishing the foundation and justification of the current Putin dictatorship. 

If actual democracy fails in Russia, which seems likely, it will be yet another consequence of failed conservative foreign policy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
Click to expand...


LOL!

Classic!

Word for word from the "I used ta be a Republican" script


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOt really.
> 
> Unless by working, you mean making billions for defense contractors for a system that didn't work.
> 
> Heck, they couldn't even knock down slow moving SCUDs in Gulf War I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up on current events, Josef.
> 
> News & Views: Missile defense hits its target
> By Howard Hurlbut, Guest columnist
> POSTED: 07/02/14, 8:45 PM PDT | 0 COMMENTS
> A ground-based missile fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base hit a mock enemy warhead launched from the Marshall Islands last week.
> 
> Better than spending over $1 Billion to build the worlds only website that can't tell you when and if someone bought your product
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu mean after 30 years of trying, they managed to knock out a missile where they knew the exact time and trajectory it would be flying under?
> 
> Really?
> 
> This impresses you?
> 
> Because I can't think a real enemy is ever going to be accommodating enough to
> 
> 1) Just launch one missile.
> 2) Tell us which missiles are dummies and which one has the real warhead
> 3) Tell us exactly what time and flight path their missile is going to take.
> 4) Not launch preliminary attacks against wherever we will launch the counter-missiles from.
Click to expand...


Joe, unlike the ObamaCare website, SDI worked.

You and Carl Sagan got it wrong.

And the system gets better every time.

It must suck to keep rooting for the USSR and failure


----------



## gipper

Dad2three said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
Click to expand...


Okay...so since Reagan ran up the deficit, expanded the drug war, and ignored the rule of law, you decided to vote for the most liberal candidates.

Do you fail to see how dumb that is?


----------



## PoliticalChic

JoeB131 said:


> The USSR did not fall because of SDI, or arming Jihadis in Afghanistan, or because Reagan gave a wall a stern talking to.
> 
> It fell because Poles and East Germans and Hungarians and Khazaks and Uzbeks were just tired of taking shit from Russians, and Russians were getting tired of keeping them in line.





Thank you, DNC.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, not really.
> 
> The USSR fell because of the same reason all other empires fall. The ruling nation no longer saw a benefit to having an empire, and the ruled no longer saw a benefit to being ruled.
> 
> But please believe it was because the DoorMat of Europe wanted to throw off the communists for big corporations.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you and a few other dingbats believe that. What you call the doormat of Europe, Hungary, then Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany and Romania,  certainly was until your beloved Soviets were overthrown.  Reagan was a giant, and no amount of historical revision is going to change his roll in reducing that Union to rubble.

Get over it. Humpty Dumpty will never be pieced back together again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dad2three said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
Click to expand...




What a dope you are.....bet you hear that a lot.


1.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2.	But.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm


As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth. 
US Department of the Treasury


The benefits from Reaganomics:
a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP
f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116  


b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PoliticalChic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dope you are.....bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> 
> 1.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
> 2.	But.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
> 3.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
> 
> George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ
> 
> Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
> 
> 
> As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.
> US Department of the Treasury
> 
> 
> The benefits from Reaganomics:
> a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
> b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
> c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
> d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
> e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP
> f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116
> 
> 
> b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush
Click to expand...


That's another reason why Progressives HATE Reagan


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!






A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. 


...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...so since Reagan ran up the deficit, expanded the drug war, and ignored the rule of law, you decided to vote for the most liberal candidates.
> 
> Do you fail to see how dumb that is?
Click to expand...




Didn't read the other comments and use context huh? I said I voted Ronnie 'Cut and Run' Reagan twice THEN grew a brain, and started voting the most liberal. I was 19 my first GOP vote, 23 my last...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan: Revitalized the US economy, crushed the USSR, and hated by "American" Progressives.

Not bad, not bad all all, Ronnie


----------



## Dad2three

PoliticalChic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dope you are.....bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> 
> 1.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
> 2.	But&#8230;.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
> 3.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
> 
> George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ
> 
> Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. &#8220;As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.&#8221; http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
> 
> 
> &#8220;As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.&#8221;
> US Department of the Treasury
> 
> 
> The benefits from Reaganomics:
> a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate&#8230;compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
> b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
> c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
> d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
> e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP
> f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh D&#8217;Souza, &#8220;Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,&#8221; p. 116
> 
> 
> b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush
Click to expand...




Yes, Reagan was the ONY Prez to triple the US debt. First Prez to take US from a creditor nation to debtor nation. 

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act, which he said he would have voted against, and publically supported the South African apartheid regime

If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html?_r=4&hp&


















These lack of correlation between lower taxes and increased economic growth flies in the face of the assumptions of many.  But upon a closer look, it&#8217;s easy to understand why higher taxes can actually encourage more investment in the economy.











Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed.  However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserve&#8217;s lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending).  In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for.  Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).


http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/reagan-deficit-stimulus.gif



http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan: Revitalized the US economy, crushed the USSR, and hated by "American" Progressives.
> 
> Not bad, not bat all all, Ronnie



How did he do that? By having a top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years? Don't know what a Biz cycle is huh? Or the damage Nixon's/Ford's price and wage controls did? Or OPEC? lol


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his &#8220;Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,&#8221; along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.
> 
> 
> ...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of &#8220;Containment&#8221; by eight U.S. presidents.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

Your source is even less credible than yourself. He talks about polls that he can't link doubting, no doubt, that idiots would link his articles to those who could actually think for themselves.

The failure is just as much yours as the fool you linked.

Failures really don't like Reagan, and I can't imagine why.


----------



## Dad2three

PoliticalChic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dope you are.....bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> 
> 1.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
> 2.	But.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
> 3.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
> 
> George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ
> 
> Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
> 
> 
> As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.
> US Department of the Treasury
> 
> 
> The benefits from Reaganomics:
> a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
> b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
> c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
> d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
> e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP
> f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116
> 
> 
> b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush
Click to expand...




The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan 


A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.




They singled out Reagans 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who was there.

The plutocrats idolize Reagan because he cut taxes on the wealthy -- on income, capital gains, interest, and dividends -- and increased taxes on working people, including raising the self-employment (SECA) tax rate by 60%. He made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), and school lunch programs. Mark Hertsgaard (On Bended Knee: the Press and the Reagan Presidency) called it arguably the single greatest government-led transfer of wealth in history, and in the direction of the top two percent; the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third under Reagan



The result is an enduring, entitled class of individuals who believe that work should be taxed, but wealth should not, and probably, like Reagan that The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless. They control the Republican Party. 


Their revisionist history makes Reagan into a small-government fiscal conservative, but he actually grew the government by 53% (Mises Institute), increasing military expenditures by 27% and creating another new department, Veterans Affairs. He never submitted a balanced budget and ended up tripling the national debt to $3 trillion. His S&L bailout cost 2.4 times more to fix (relative to GDP) than Bushs financial crisis. The Washington Post reported in Reagan's last year that "In less than a decade, the world's largest creditor nation has become its leading debtor.



Never mentioned in the current hagiography is that he amnestied 3 million illegal aliens; that among his most important advisers was an astrologer (Joan Quigley) whom Nancy consulted daily about major decisions; and that he regularly fabricated stories, including about personally liberating Nazi concentration camps (he never left California).



Other inconvenient facts about Reagan have disappeared into the memory hole: he provided aid to Saddam Hussein after his unprovoked attacked on Iran and despite Saddams known use of chemical weapons; he funneled money and arms to the Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan who later morphed into al Qaeda; his sending Marines ashore in Lebanon led to the deaths of 241 Marines; and, he invaded tiny Grenada on the flimsiest of pretenses.

Reagan illegally traded weapons to Iran for American hostages (which led to more Americans being kidnapped) and repeatedly lied about it. 


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## whitehall

"Salon's" version of Reagan? Yeah right. Opinions are like ass holes. Everybody has one but left wingers use them to communicate.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Joe, unlike the ObamaCare website, SDI worked.
> 
> You and Carl Sagan got it wrong.
> 
> And the system gets better every time.
> 
> It must suck to keep rooting for the USSR and failure



10 million people have signed up for ObamaCare using the website.  

SDI has worked- once, under lab conditions in a controlled environment.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: Revitalized the US economy, crushed the USSR, and hated by "American" Progressives.
> 
> Not bad, not bat all all, Ronnie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did he do that? By having a top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years? Don't know what a Biz cycle is huh? Or the damage Nixon's/Ford's price and wage controls did? Or OPEC? lol
Click to expand...


He cut taxes on income and capital gains, Dear

Wait, why did you "Vote for him"? Do you nit recall?


----------



## Camp

Petition seeks to rename Ronald Reagan airport after Tim Howard | TheHill

President Reagan seems to be becoming part of American humor. The brunt of a joke.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, unlike the ObamaCare website, SDI worked.
> 
> You and Carl Sagan got it wrong.
> 
> And the system gets better every time.
> 
> It must suck to keep rooting for the USSR and failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 million people have signed up for ObamaCare using the website.
> 
> SDI has worked- once, under lab conditions in a controlled environment.
Click to expand...


We can't say for sure how many signed up, we're not sure if they're citizens or if they paid.

SDI worked Josef, sucks to be you
US Missile Defense System Finally Meets With Success
By Elizabeth Palermo, Live Science Contributor   |   June 26, 2014 12:23pm ET

Missile Interceptor Test - June 22, 2014
Pin It The United States military's Ground-based Midcourse Defense system was tested on June 22, 2014. An interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and successfully destroyed a mock enemy missile over the Pacific Ocean.
Credit: Missile Defense Agency/U.S. Department of Defense
View full size image
The United States military announced this week that on June 22, a so-called interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and successfully destroyed a mock enemy warhead high over the Pacific Ocean.

The successful test of the nation's ground-based missile defense system was a landmark event for the military and the government contractors responsible for developing and maintaining the country's ground-based defenses.

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system tested on Sunday (June 22) had previously failed its last four tests, the first of which was carried out in December 2008, reported the Los Angeles Times. Sunday's successful interception marks the first time in six years that the system proved effective at destroying a test target. [7 Technologies That Transformed Warfare]

&#8220;This is a very important step in our continuing efforts to improve and increase the reliability of our homeland ballistic missile defense system," James D. Syring, Navy Vice Admiral and director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), said in a statement.


----------



## JoeB131

Guy we have crumbling bridges, ineffective schools and all our manufacturing is going to China.  

You guys did more damage to this country than the 'communists' ever did.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Petition seeks to rename Ronald Reagan airport after Tim Howard | TheHill
> 
> President Reagan seems to be becoming part of American humor. The brunt of a joke.


From your link:

_But it might be difficult to win a battle with supporters of Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, *who led the country to the end of the Cold War and is one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century.*_

Now tell me that Reagan doesn't rock!


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petition seeks to rename Ronald Reagan airport after Tim Howard | TheHill
> 
> President Reagan seems to be becoming part of American humor. The brunt of a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> _But it might be difficult to win a battle with supporters of Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, *who led the country to the end of the Cold War and is one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century.*_
> 
> Now tell me that Reagan doesn't rock!
Click to expand...


Nobody expects the petition to be successful in getting the airport name change. The fact it is even considered simply confirms that Reagan's popularity and more important, the respect he gets from the general public is on the wane.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petition seeks to rename Ronald Reagan airport after Tim Howard | TheHill
> 
> President Reagan seems to be becoming part of American humor. The brunt of a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> _But it might be difficult to win a battle with supporters of Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, *who led the country to the end of the Cold War and is one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century.*_
> 
> Now tell me that Reagan doesn't rock!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody expects the petition to be successful in getting the airport name change. The fact it is even considered simply confirms that Reagan's popularity and more important, the respect he gets from the general public is on the wane.
Click to expand...

Wishful but futile attempt at correlation. Give it up Camp. You've been at this for so long it's pathetic. Find something else you might have more success in. Flipping burgers for instance.


----------



## Dot Com

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Petition seeks to rename Ronald Reagan airport after Tim Howard | TheHill
> 
> President Reagan seems to be becoming part of American humor. The brunt of a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> _But it might be difficult to win a battle with supporters of Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, *who led the country to the end of the Cold War and is one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century.*_
> 
> Now tell me that Reagan doesn't rock!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody expects the petition to be successful in getting the airport name change. The fact it is even considered simply confirms that Reagan's popularity and more important, the respect he gets from the general public is on the wane.
Click to expand...


Ironically the airport was already named after a former President- Washington BUT the repubs wanted to rename everything they could after the gipper


----------



## Meathead

Dot Com said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> _But it might be difficult to win a battle with supporters of Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, *who led the country to the end of the Cold War and is one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century.*_
> 
> Now tell me that Reagan doesn't rock!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody expects the petition to be successful in getting the airport name change. The fact it is even considered simply confirms that Reagan's popularity and more important, the respect he gets from the general public is on the wane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironically the airport was already named after a former President- Washington BUT the repubs wanted to rename everything they could after the gipper
Click to expand...

Not ironically you are misinformed. It was simply named Washington National Airport. It is now named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Dumbing down I suppose.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody expects the petition to be successful in getting the airport name change. The fact it is even considered simply confirms that Reagan's popularity and more important, the respect he gets from the general public is on the wane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically the airport was already named after a former President- Washington BUT the repubs wanted to rename everything they could after the gipper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not ironically you are misinformed. It was simply named Washington National Airport. It is now named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
> 
> Dumbing down I suppose.
Click to expand...


You got no room to talk about dumbing down. It was originally named National Airport and built by *FDR*. It became Washington National when Reagan gave up federal government ownership of the airport and became named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport under Clinton. It is usually referred to as simply Reagan International. 
It was never referred to as the Washington, D.C. International Airport.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Guy we have crumbling bridges, ineffective schools and all our manufacturing is going to China.
> 
> You guys did more damage to this country than the 'communists' ever did.



Step 1. Insert <Laundry List  of stuff Democrats fucked Up>
Step 2. Blame Republicans
Step 3. Go to Step 1


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically the airport was already named after a former President- Washington BUT the repubs wanted to rename everything they could after the gipper
> 
> 
> 
> Not ironically you are misinformed. It was simply named Washington National Airport. It is now named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
> 
> Dumbing down I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got no room to talk about dumbing down. It was originally named National Airport and built by *FDR*. It became Washington National when Reagan gave up federal government ownership of the airport and became named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport under Clinton. It is usually referred to as simply Reagan International.
> It was never referred to as the Washington, D.C. International Airport.
Click to expand...

No, your dumbing down is apparent and not only with your tenuous grasp of history. To wit: 

*For decades it was called Washington National Airport; it was renamed in 1998 to honor former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. *

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an example of dumbing down. You can't deny it, too obvious. Sorry.


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his &#8220;Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,&#8221; along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.
> 
> 
> ...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of &#8220;Containment&#8221; by eight U.S. presidents.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your source is even less credible than yourself. He talks about polls that he can't link doubting, no doubt, that idiots would link his articles to those who could actually think for themselves.
> 
> The failure is just as much yours as the fool you linked.
> 
> Failures really don't like Reagan, and I can't imagine why.
Click to expand...





Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan's job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range

Ronald Reagan From the People?s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review


However, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush have enjoyed substantial increases in public approval since leaving office, particularly when they have stayed out of partisan politics.

Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest



Poppy Bush&#8217;s approval rating hit a low of 29 percent in midsummer 1992, a steep decline of 60 percent in 16 months.

5 Presidents With the Biggest Approval Rating Declines | Listosaur | Hungry for Knowledge


NOW USING YOUR BRAIN, IS IT LESS LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY THAT THE FACT IS REAGAN WAS LIKED LESS THAN EVEN CARTER IN 1993, BEFORE THE MYTHICAL REMAKING OF HIM BY RIGHT WINGERS? LOL




By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years &#8212; which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987 &#8212; as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the &#8220;failed policies of Reagan and Bush.&#8221; As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.

Today, though, you&#8217;d never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagan&#8217;s image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.


When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter - Salon.com


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his &#8220;Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,&#8221; along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.
> 
> 
> ...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of &#8220;Containment&#8221; by eight U.S. presidents.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your source is even less credible than yourself. He talks about polls that he can't link doubting, no doubt, that idiots would link his articles to those who could actually think for themselves.
> 
> The failure is just as much yours as the fool you linked.
> 
> Failures really don't like Reagan, and I can't imagine why.
Click to expand...





Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan's job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range

Ronald Reagan From the People?s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review


However, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush have enjoyed substantial increases in public approval since leaving office, particularly when they have stayed out of partisan politics.

Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest



Poppy Bush&#8217;s approval rating hit a low of 29 percent in midsummer 1992, a steep decline of 60 percent in 16 months.

5 Presidents With the Biggest Approval Rating Declines | Listosaur | Hungry for Knowledge


*NOW USING YOUR BRAIN, IS IT LESS LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY THAT THE FACT IS REAGAN WAS LIKED LESS THAN EVEN CARTER IN 1992, BEFORE THE MYTHICAL REMAKING OF HIM BY RIGHT WINGERS? LOL*




By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years &#8212; which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987 &#8212; as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the &#8220;failed policies of Reagan and Bush.&#8221; As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.

Today, though, you&#8217;d never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagan&#8217;s image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.


When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter - Salon.com


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: Revitalized the US economy, crushed the USSR, and hated by "American" Progressives.
> 
> Not bad, not bat all all, Ronnie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did he do that? By having a top tax rate of 50% the first 6 years? Don't know what a Biz cycle is huh? Or the damage Nixon's/Ford's price and wage controls did? Or OPEC? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He cut taxes on income and capital gains, Dear
> 
> Wait, why did you "Vote for him"? Do you nit recall?
Click to expand...



So you DON'T know how the economy could've boomed because the top rate for Ronnie's first 6 years was STILL 50%?


 The Myths of Reaganomics 


It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, unlike the ObamaCare website, SDI worked.
> 
> You and Carl Sagan got it wrong.
> 
> And the system gets better every time.
> 
> It must suck to keep rooting for the USSR and failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 million people have signed up for ObamaCare using the website.
> 
> SDI has worked- once, under lab conditions in a controlled environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can't say for sure how many signed up, we're not sure if they're citizens or if they paid.
> 
> SDI worked Josef, sucks to be you
> US Missile Defense System Finally Meets With Success
> By Elizabeth Palermo, Live Science Contributor   |   June 26, 2014 12:23pm ET
> 
> Missile Interceptor Test - June 22, 2014
> Pin It The United States military's Ground-based Midcourse Defense system was tested on June 22, 2014. An interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and successfully destroyed a mock enemy missile over the Pacific Ocean.
> Credit: Missile Defense Agency/U.S. Department of Defense
> View full size image
> The United States military announced this week that on June 22, a so-called interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and successfully destroyed a mock enemy warhead high over the Pacific Ocean.
> 
> The successful test of the nation's ground-based missile defense system was a landmark event for the military and the government contractors responsible for developing and maintaining the country's ground-based defenses.
> 
> The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system tested on Sunday (June 22) had previously failed its last four tests, the first of which was carried out in December 2008, reported the Los Angeles Times. Sunday's successful interception marks the first time in six years that the system proved effective at destroying a test target. [7 Technologies That Transformed Warfare]
> 
> This is a very important step in our continuing efforts to improve and increase the reliability of our homeland ballistic missile defense system," James D. Syring, Navy Vice Admiral and director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), said in a statement.
Click to expand...




US Missile Defense System Finally Meets With Success


The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system tested on Sunday (June 22) had previously failed its last four tests, the first of which was carried out in December 2008, reported the Los Angeles Times. Sunday's successful interception marks the first time in six years that the system proved effective at destroying a test target



While no such system was ever deployed under the Reagan administration,


However, as the LA Times reported earlier this month, just because this particular kill vehicle destroyed its target, that doesn't mean the next one will. Each kill vehicle is handmade and contains over 1,000 component parts, which means that no two of these devices are the same. According to the Times, engineers who have worked on the missile defense system acknowledge that because each kill vehicle is unique, even a successful test might not predict the performance of future interceptors launched in combat.


https://news.yahoo.com/us-missile-defense-system-finally-meets-success-160854627.html


SEE HOW A LINK WORKS?

BUT AGAIN


The system was declared operational 10 years ago and has cost a total of $40 billion. It dates back to President Reagans Star Wars concept.

The defending missile is supposed to hit the incoming missile in mid-air. Like all the previous tests, this one was carefully staged.

Those launching the intercepting missile knew the targets exact dimensions, its time of launch, its trajectory, and its speed.

This information would not be available in time of war.


News & Views: Missile defense hits its target


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.
> 
> 
> ...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is even less credible than yourself. He talks about polls that he can't link doubting, no doubt, that idiots would link his articles to those who could actually think for themselves.
> 
> The failure is just as much yours as the fool you linked.
> 
> Failures really don't like Reagan, and I can't imagine why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan's job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range
> 
> Ronald Reagan From the People?s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review
> 
> 
> However, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush have enjoyed substantial increases in public approval since leaving office, particularly when they have stayed out of partisan politics.
> 
> Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest
> 
> 
> 
> Poppy Bushs approval rating hit a low of 29 percent in midsummer 1992, a steep decline of 60 percent in 16 months.
> 
> 5 Presidents With the Biggest Approval Rating Declines | Listosaur | Hungry for Knowledge
> 
> 
> *NOW USING YOUR BRAIN, IS IT LESS LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY THAT THE FACT IS REAGAN WAS LIKED LESS THAN EVEN CARTER IN 1992, BEFORE THE MYTHICAL REMAKING OF HIM BY RIGHT WINGERS? LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years  which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987  as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the failed policies of Reagan and Bush. As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.
> 
> Today, though, youd never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagans image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.
> 
> 
> When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter - Salon.com
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think posting the same Salon article not once but twice is going to legitimize it or make you seem any more credible? Desperate historical revision was for the likes of the peasant population of post-Red October Russia.

Still, as with the likes of Camp, I despair the dumbing down of America.


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not ironically you are misinformed. It was simply named Washington National Airport. It is now named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
> 
> Dumbing down I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got no room to talk about dumbing down. It was originally named National Airport and built by *FDR*. It became Washington National when Reagan gave up federal government ownership of the airport and became named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport under Clinton. It is usually referred to as simply Reagan International.
> It was never referred to as the Washington, D.C. International Airport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your dumbing down is apparent and not only with your tenuous grasp of history. To wit:
> 
> *For decades it was called Washington National Airport; it was renamed in 1998 to honor former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. *
> 
> Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is an example of dumbing down. You can't deny it, too obvious. Sorry.
Click to expand...


DUMBASS, YOUR LINK PROVES HIS POINTS, lol


 For decades it was called Washington National Airport; it was renamed in 1998 to honor former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 


Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is even less credible than yourself. He talks about polls that he can't link doubting, no doubt, that idiots would link his articles to those who could actually think for themselves.
> 
> The failure is just as much yours as the fool you linked.
> 
> Failures really don't like Reagan, and I can't imagine why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan's job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range
> 
> Ronald Reagan From the People?s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review
> 
> 
> However, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush have enjoyed substantial increases in public approval since leaving office, particularly when they have stayed out of partisan politics.
> 
> Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest
> 
> 
> 
> Poppy Bushs approval rating hit a low of 29 percent in midsummer 1992, a steep decline of 60 percent in 16 months.
> 
> 5 Presidents With the Biggest Approval Rating Declines | Listosaur | Hungry for Knowledge
> 
> 
> *NOW USING YOUR BRAIN, IS IT LESS LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY THAT THE FACT IS REAGAN WAS LIKED LESS THAN EVEN CARTER IN 1992, BEFORE THE MYTHICAL REMAKING OF HIM BY RIGHT WINGERS? LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years  which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987  as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the failed policies of Reagan and Bush. As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.
> 
> Today, though, youd never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagans image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.
> 
> 
> When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter - Salon.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you honestly think posting the same Salon article not once but twice is going to legitimize it or make you seem any more credible? Desperate historical revision was for the likes of the peasant population of post-Red October Russia.
> 
> Still, as with the likes of Camp, I despair the dumbing down of America.
Click to expand...


Got it, Giving you CREDIBLE links having Gallup polls showing 50% approval ratings for Ronnie and 29% for Bush, doesn't allow you to believe Reagan hit 46% favorable  ratings, just before the GOP Convention in 1992? As the US economy was tanking?  lol


----------



## Meathead

@ Dad: Salon is not a credible link. The airport is called Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Finally, it is invariable that I become condescending with you for reasons beyond my control. Imagine you must be used to it when attempting to engage those beyond your dumbed down cronies.

My bad, I suppose.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not ironically you are misinformed. It was simply named Washington National Airport. It is now named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
> 
> Dumbing down I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got no room to talk about dumbing down. It was originally named National Airport and built by *FDR*. It became Washington National when Reagan gave up federal government ownership of the airport and became named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport under Clinton. It is usually referred to as simply Reagan International.
> It was never referred to as the Washington, D.C. International Airport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your dumbing down is apparent and not only with your tenuous grasp of history. To wit:
> 
> *For decades it was called Washington National Airport; it was renamed in 1998 to honor former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. *
> 
> Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is an example of dumbing down. You can't deny it, too obvious. Sorry.
Click to expand...


A genuine dumb ass is one that goes on the attack and calls others dumb armed with nothing more than wikipedia for a source. National Airport was always National Airport until 1987 when the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority was established.
Anyhow, here is a more reliable source:

History


----------



## CrusaderFrank

SDI worked, USSR defeated, real economic growth, drives "American" liberals to insanity.

Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy we have crumbling bridges, ineffective schools and all our manufacturing is going to China.
> 
> You guys did more damage to this country than the 'communists' ever did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Step 1. Insert <Laundry List  of stuff Democrats fucked Up>
> Step 2. Blame Republicans
> Step 3. Go to Step 1
Click to expand...


Really?  I seem to remember those bridges collapsing on Bush's watch... along with the infrastructure. 

I mean, it's amazing.  You guys take no credit for Nixon, Ford, or either of the Bushes and you replace Reagan with a mythical version.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> SDI worked, USSR defeated, real economic growth, drives "American" liberals to insanity.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all



THe real Reagan record. 

Middle class destroyed.
National Debt tripled and deficit spending instutionalized
Billions pissed away on "Star Wars" 
Jihadists armed and turn on America


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> SDI worked, USSR defeated, real economic growth, drives "American" liberals to insanity.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe real Reagan record.
> 
> Middle class destroyed.
> National Debt tripled and deficit spending instutionalized
> Billions pissed away on "Star Wars"
> Jihadists armed and turn on America
Click to expand...

Progressives have to lie about their failures and Conservative success

What are you going to say that you're espousing a system with a guaranteed fail but this time it'll work?


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got no room to talk about dumbing down. It was originally named National Airport and built by *FDR*. It became Washington National when Reagan gave up federal government ownership of the airport and became named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport under Clinton. It is usually referred to as simply Reagan International.
> It was never referred to as the Washington, D.C. International Airport.
> 
> 
> 
> No, your dumbing down is apparent and not only with your tenuous grasp of history. To wit:
> 
> *For decades it was called Washington National Airport; it was renamed in 1998 to honor former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. *
> 
> Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is an example of dumbing down. You can't deny it, too obvious. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A genuine dumb ass is one that goes on the attack and calls others dumb armed with nothing more than wikipedia for a source. National Airport was always National Airport until 1987 when the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority was established.
> Anyhow, here is a more reliable source:
> 
> History
Click to expand...

What is so difficult with Washington National becoming Ronald Reagan Washington National? WTF is it you don't understand? 

Even being dumbed down by elementary public education is no excuse at this level of simplicity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Blacks did much better with Reagan as President than with Obama


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> SDI worked, USSR defeated, real economic growth, drives "American" liberals to insanity.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe real Reagan record.
> 
> Middle class destroyed.
> National Debt tripled and deficit spending instutionalized
> Billions pissed away on "Star Wars"
> Jihadists armed and turn on America
Click to expand...


^ that

He raised taxes & traded weapons to Iranians too


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> SDI worked, USSR defeated, real economic growth, drives "American" liberals to insanity.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe real Reagan record.
> 
> Middle class destroyed.
> National Debt tripled and deficit spending instutionalized
> Billions pissed away on "Star Wars"
> Jihadists armed and turn on America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives have to lie about their failures and Conservative success
> 
> What are you going to say that you're espousing a system with a guaranteed fail but this time it'll work?
Click to expand...


Um, the system I espouse is what we had before Reagan.  The rich pay their fair share and workers are unionized to make sure their employers aren't cheating them. 

That worked reasonably well and we had the highest standard of living in the world.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Blacks did much better with Reagan as President than with Obama



Now you just need to convince blacks of that. 

Of course, you'll claim something about them being on a "Plantation" or some such shit. 

unlike your typical right wing red state voter, who is poorer than shit.


----------



## Meathead

CrusaderFrank said:


> Blacks did much better with Reagan as President than with Obama


Everyone did better did except for the far left. The fact that they're still whining about him 25 years on is testament to what a giant of a man he was


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe real Reagan record.
> 
> Middle class destroyed.
> National Debt tripled and deficit spending instutionalized
> Billions pissed away on "Star Wars"
> Jihadists armed and turn on America
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives have to lie about their failures and Conservative success
> 
> What are you going to say that you're espousing a system with a guaranteed fail but this time it'll work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, the system I espouse is what we had before Reagan.  The rich pay their fair share and workers are unionized to make sure their employers aren't cheating them.
> 
> That worked reasonably well and we had the highest standard of living in the world.
Click to expand...


The rich already pay the majority of the income tax.  What proof do you have that they are not paying 'their fair share?'  ....well I would guess in your mind, they should pay most if not all their income to the corrupt and inefficient big government you love...which would do nothing, but farther destroy the economy.

Reagan, like all our presidents has much to criticize.  But compared to what?  Compared to Big Ears, he looks very good.

You hate Reagan, but love BO.  Now that is some kind of crazy psychosis.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> The rich already pay the majority of the income tax.  What proof do you have that they are paying 'their fair share?'



Income taxes only account for 40% of federal revenues.  THat's not even factoring in state taxes.  Other taxes like Social Security and medicare fall firmly on the shoulders of the middle class.  




gipper said:


> [
> ....well I would guess in your mind, they should pay most if not all their income to the corrupt and inefficient big government you  love...which would do nothing but farther destroy the economy.



Most countries that have socialized medicine and a bigger social safety net are more prosperous than we are.  They live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, less crime, less prisons.  



gipper said:


> [Reagan, like all our presidents has much to criticize.  But compared to what?  Compared to Big Ears, he looks very good.
> 
> You hate Reagan, but love BO.  Now that is some kind of crazy psychosis.



I voted for Reagan twice, but only voted for Obama once.  (ANd that was only because the GOP nominated a fucking Mormon.) 

Again, I really don't waste a lot of time talking to Libertarian Loons.  Most of you just need to put down the bong.


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives have to lie about their failures and Conservative success
> 
> What are you going to say that you're espousing a system with a guaranteed fail but this time it'll work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, the system I espouse is what we had before Reagan.  The rich pay their fair share and workers are unionized to make sure their employers aren't cheating them.
> 
> That worked reasonably well and we had the highest standard of living in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich already pay the majority of the income tax.  What proof do you have that they are not paying 'their fair share?'  ....well I would guess in your mind, they should pay most if not all their income to the corrupt and inefficient big government you love...which would do nothing, but farther destroy the economy.
> 
> Reagan, like all our presidents has much to criticize.  But compared to what?  Compared to Big Ears, he looks very good.
> 
> You hate Reagan, but love BO.  Now that is some kind of crazy psychosis.
Click to expand...


Majority of income taxes? Oh that 42% of the pie? Near post WW2's share of federal revenues?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory



This paragraph from the report says it all

The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009.

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"... 

Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics. 'free trade', etc) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite


----------



## Dante

[MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION] 





CrusaderFrank said:


> SDI worked
> ...



Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...



Oh Frank!


----------



## Dante

[MENTION=34777]Meathead[/MENTION] 





Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your dumbing down is apparent and not only with your tenuous grasp of history. To wit:
> 
> *For decades it was called Washington National Airport; it was renamed in 1998 to honor former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. *
> 
> Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is an example of dumbing down. You can't deny it, too obvious. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A genuine dumb ass is one that goes on the attack and calls others dumb armed with nothing more than wikipedia for a source. National Airport was always National Airport until 1987 when the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority was established.
> Anyhow, here is a more reliable source:
> 
> History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is so difficult with Washington National becoming Ronald Reagan Washington National? WTF is it you don't understand?
> 
> Even being dumbed down by elementary public education is no excuse at this level of simplicity.
Click to expand...


_Oh the irony! The irony._


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and strategic defense initiative worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt really.
> 
> Unless by working, you mean making billions for defense contractors for a system that didn't work.
> 
> Heck, they couldn't even knock down slow moving SCUDs in Gulf War I.
Click to expand...


yep it defenetely worked for ronnie in that aspect serving the defense contracters.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dad you never answered my question here which is have you seen this two hour video THE OBAMA DECEPTION? you should watch it because there is one part in there  that refers to JFK and explains in detail with proof contrary to what the reaganut worshippers believe,that JFK was our last GREAT president we had.
> 
> JFK was our last GREAT president we had but carter was our last GOOD president we had.we were actually taking positive steps under carters leadership when he was in office on getting back to being  a free country again and having civil libertys as well honored.
> 
> That all changed with Reagan and with every president since him,they all turned it up a notch what he got started.he was the original grandfather of all these presidents since him taking us down that path towards a facist dictatership.Like I said before,thats just another example of how when a good president that comes along,he doesnt get to serve in office very long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad since I obviously cant get an answer from you on this video,I'm going to assume you are a fan of Obama? which I fail to understand why since he is a facist dictater who has copied everything that reagan the grandfather of it all got started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have 2 choices when voting for Prez, bad and MUCH worse. I tend to vote bad
> 
> Do I wish he was a REAL liberal versus second best conservative Prez since Ike (only Bill was better)? Yes
> 
> 
> UNTIL WE GET FINANCE REFORM, MONEY OUT OF POLITICS, WE WILL NOT HAVE A 'GOOD CHOICE' TO CHOOSE FROM!
Click to expand...


very true. If you watch that video you will understand that JFK was our last REAL president we had.real because unlike every president since him,he wasnt a puppet for the establishment.Unlike every president since him,he followed the constitution and served the people instead of the bankers and paid the price for doing so on nov 22nd 1963.You dont do what they tell you to do,they off you. He wasnt part of the country club that our current president and his buddy Bush and Clinton are. you're right that until we get money out of politics,we will never have a good choice to choose from again. 

You'll never see a president anything like him again.as long as money is involved,we will never have a good choice again just like we havent for the past 50 years.Its gotten worse with each president since then and will only continue as long as we have this corrupt two party system and not a third party one who gets elected that is not backed by money, unfortunatley,i have hard time believing that will ever happen.not til the sheople get off their asses and fight to take their country back from the bankers running the country.

see you cant just say- i will vote for the lesser evil of the two because by resigning to that,you are contributing to the problem because you are STILL voting for evil.your choices are always hitler or stalin.either way your screwed with either one of them in office.so since they never give you a good choice to whom to vote for since they are always backed by money,its a complete waste of time voting.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, SDI worked well enough to not be a failure, but that isn't really the point.  Dante does have a kernel of truth that Reagan's actions really did appall the extreme right and what would be the neocons.  Reagan didn't make any secret that he loathed nuclear weapons.  (that was much of the joke when he said on tv, not knowing the cameras were on, 'the bombing commences in ... minutes.")
> 
> Reagan was a liberal in terms of he shared the founders view that mankind inevitably was in an upward spiral towards personal liberation.  His religious views weren't all that different from Deists.  The notion that freedom was secured via mutually assured destruction of human kind was abhorrent.  But, he was such a staunch anti-communist, the RW didn't go there.  Moreover, Goldwater had been maligned by the Daisy commercial by LBJ.  Frankly, Goldwater was less a menace to unleash the holocaust than LBJ.
> 
> The impact of SDI was that Reagan and Gorby both knew the soviet generals would have to respond to an arms race, and the soviets couldn't afford it.  (Neither could we, but so much)  Whether the damn thing could stop 50-75-90% of warheads wasn't really the point.  The Soviets needed a lot more missles, that was the point.
> 
> By the mid 80s it was clear that the Soviet economy wasn't able to allocate capital quickly enough to compete in a post-technological world.  Reagan always distrusted the CIA analysis of their economy.  While the Soviets probably did grow gnp faster than we in the early 60s, there was no way they could compete in 1984.  As the saying went, if they can't provide citizens tampons, they are a third world country with nukes.
> 
> So, into his second term, having achieved a fair degree of conventional arms parity, and with a idealist distrust of MAD, and the economic evidence that his faith in neoliberal economics (Thatcherism) was justified, the old guy was a lot freer to be Reagan.  And Dante's right, there were political commentators on the right who weren't as great visionaries as Reagan, who didn't get that.
> 
> But, the economic views of Commanding Heights sort balance out Will and the gang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You meant to say Reagan's (one sided) Keynesian policies where he ramped up spending created an economy that did slightly better than the stagnant 1970's? He did this at the same time he cut revenues to the treasury  and taxes on the rich. Tripled US debt
> 
> 
> 
> SDI WORKED? Under Reagan? Got a link?
> 
> 
> This was the first successful test of the U.S. missile defense system in four attempts dating back to December, 2008.
> 
> Of the 16 tests of this defense system held thus far, eight hit the target and eight missed it.
> 
> The system was declared operational 10 years ago and has cost a total of $40 billion. It dates back to President Reagan&#8217;s &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; concept.
> 
> The defending missile is supposed to hit the incoming missile in mid-air. Like all the previous tests, this one was carefully staged.
> 
> Those launching the intercepting missile knew the target&#8217;s exact dimensions, its time of launch, its trajectory, and its speed.
> 
> This information would not be available in time of war.
> 
> News & Views: Missile defense hits its target
Click to expand...


exactly. also  the religious views that were told to us by the controlled media and what they ACTUALLy were are like night and day.The religious views of reagan that were crammed down our throuts were that he has a god fearing christian.he fooled people very well in that by wanting prayer in school.But this was the REAL Ronnies religious views.

Ronald Reagan: No Hero

Much of the activity of the Reagan years can be explained by the fact that Ronnie and Nancy were devout supporters of Satanists. So devout that they insisted the head of the satanic Temple of Set, Colonel Michael Aquino, visit the White House wearing his satanic high-priest robe. With Reagan's support Aquino was able to get Satanism recognized as a protected religious belief in the military. Aquino was investigated by the military as well as the San Francisco Police Dept. when children identified him as head of a "Devil Worship Club" that ritually molested, murdered and cannibalized children. The court document notes that several members of the Army thought there was probable cause to "Title" Aquino with offenses of indecent acts with a child, sodomy, conspiracy, kidnapping, and false swearing - but the case was dismissed under pressure from the highest levels.

Daughter Maureen Reagan was close to Larry King, head of the failed Franklin Community Credit Union, Republican darling and leader of a child abduction, pornography and prostitution ring. Larry King was well known in the 1980's for his lavish parties attended by Republican power-elite. Less well known was the fact that some of his events came with party favors of child sex-slaves. King was involved with the satanic CIA child abduction and mind control program that kidnapped Johnny Gosch while he was delivering newspapers. 

The June 29, 1989 Washington Times ran an article under the headlines of "Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' with the kicker "Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.'' The article said that "A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite."

When the FBI and Omaha police refused to investigate allegations against King, the Nebraska State Legislature conducted an investigation that uncovered a satanic criminal trail that led to the what longtime CIA Director William Colby called "the highest levels." Fifteen of the people involved in the investigation died under mysterious circumstance, included William Colby - who was acting as a consultant to the investigation. King was ultimately convicted of fraud for his part in the theft of over $40 million from the credit union and served five years in prison but was never convicted of his more heinous offences. 

The Republican party kept King in its innermost circle even after his indictment. He sang the Star Spangled Banner at the Republican National Convention in 1988 while under investigation. It wasn't until his arrest that the Republican party finally turned its back on him.

In 1998 & 1999, a U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska, heard testimony in the case of Paul A. Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King in which Bonacci charged that he had been ritualistically abused by the defendant, as part of a nationwide pedophile ring liked to powerful political figures in Washington and to elements of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Judge Warren K. Urbom ordered King, in Federal prison at the time, to pay $1 million in damages to Bonacci, in what Bonacci's attorney John DeCamp said was a clear signal that "the evidence presented was credible." 

America's worst financial disaster since the Great Depression occured under Reagan with the collapse of the Savings & Loan system. Nearly $500 billion was looted from thousands of Savings & Loans by a criminal ring that included the Mafia, CIA and the Bush family. Neil Bush was involved in the collapse of Silverado Savings & Loan but never served any jail time. By the time the Federal government and elite is done milking the scam further, US taxpayers will have paid well over a trillion dollars. 

The full extent of Reagan's crimes may never be known because George W. Bush issued an executive order which countermands the 1978 Presidential Records Act and prevents the release of 68,000 pages of Reagan era documents. Given that Reagan lacked the intelligence to carry out some of the more elaborate crimes, the records are likely to shed light on the true role of the Bush crime family.

Let us remember Reagan as he really was...

Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
Traitor of the American people 
Destroyer of freedom 
Destroyer of the environment 
Corporate whore 
Supporter of Satanists and child murderers 
While Reagan may have not been entirely aware of what he was doing and how his decisions would impact the world, he was also much more sinister than the media has portrayed him.

this link here is along read but it exposes the REAL ronald reagan though.its well worth the read.

http://truthseeker24info.blogspot.com/2009/01/ronald-reagan.html

whats really funny though is the foolish sheep who hate obama so much but love reagan.Like alex jones says so well in this link,Obama has done everything that reagan did.reagan was a far better actor though so he fooled people better than obozo does.

http://www.infowars.com/the-great-reagan-legacy/


----------



## LA RAM FAN

hey dad take a look at this actual photo in this link.The reaganut worshippers act like that link was neevr posted everytime i post it because it exposes how reagan was a member of that evil organization bohemian grove with an actual photo taken of him and fellow friend and other fellow mass murderer dick nixon.


Summer, 1967 at Owls Nest Camp with two future U.S. presidents. Around the table, left to right: Preston Hotchkis, Ronald Reagan, Harvey Hancock (standing), Richard Nixon, Glenn T. Seaborg, Jack Sparks, (unidentified individual), Frank Lindine, and Edwin W. Pauley.



Alex Jones: Dark Secrets ? Inside Bohemian Grove! Satanism & The Western Ruling Elites! « Socio-Economics History Blog


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, not really.
> 
> The USSR fell because of the same reason all other empires fall. The ruling nation no longer saw a benefit to having an empire, and the ruled no longer saw a benefit to being ruled.
> 
> But please believe it was because the DoorMat of Europe wanted to throw off the communists for big corporations.
Click to expand...


there MEATHEADS drugged up brain  at work again.the name meathead fits him to a tee.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PoliticalChic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you then vote Dem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dope you are.....bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> 
> 1.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
> 2.	But.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
> 3.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
> 
> George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ
> 
> Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
> 
> 
> As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.
> US Department of the Treasury
> 
> 
> The benefits from Reaganomics:
> a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
> b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
> c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
> d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
> e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP
> f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116
> 
> 
> b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush
Click to expand...


priceless.the troll uses WIKIPEDIA,a place that has a long history of being innacurate as her source.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares if SDI worked. Reagan was a master at playing the card, and damned if it didn't work. He scared the living shit out of the Soviets and drove another nail into their coffin.
> 
> The man certainly led a charmed political life. As governor of California and as POTUS, he could do little wrong. Almost 30 years after his death, he is viewed by 35% of Americans as the best post-WWII leader. Read 'em and weep suckers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.
> 
> 
> ...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


meatheads drugged up MEATHEAD brain and the rest of the reaganut worshippers got their asses handed to them on a platter from you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...so since Reagan ran up the deficit, expanded the drug war, and ignored the rule of law, you decided to vote for the most liberal candidates.
> 
> Do you fail to see how dumb that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't read the other comments and use context huh? I said I voted Ronnie 'Cut and Run' Reagan twice THEN grew a brain, and started voting the most liberal. I was 19 my first GOP vote, 23 my last...
Click to expand...


yeah somehow he missed that.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dope you are.....bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> 
> 1.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
> 2.	But.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
> 3.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
> 
> George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ
> 
> Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
> 
> 
> As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.
> US Department of the Treasury
> 
> 
> The benefits from Reaganomics:
> a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average ratecompared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
> b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
> c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
> d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
> e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP
> f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh DSouza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader, p. 116
> 
> 
> b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Reagan was the ONY Prez to triple the US debt. First Prez to take US from a creditor nation to debtor nation.
> 
> Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act, which he said he would have voted against, and publically supported the South African apartheid regime
> 
> If government employment under Mr. Obama had grown at Reagan-era rates, 1.3 million more Americans would be working as schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, etc., than are currently employed in such jobs.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/krugman-states-of-depression.html?_r=4&hp&
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These lack of correlation between lower taxes and increased economic growth flies in the face of the assumptions of many.  But upon a closer look, its easy to understand why higher taxes can actually encourage more investment in the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed.  However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserves lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending).  In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for.  Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).
> 
> 
> http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/reagan-deficit-stimulus.gif
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.factandmyth.com/taxes/tax-decreases-do-not-increase-revenue
Click to expand...


and dont forget how he betrayed americans shipping jobs overseas as well.

sure is fun watching you hand the reaganut worshippers their asses to them on a platter.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly, try to vote the most liberal candidate I can
> 
> Conservative policy NEVER works for ANYONE but the 1%ers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dope you are.....bet you hear that a lot.
> 
> 
> 1.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
> 2.	But&#8230;.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
> 3.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
> 
> George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ
> 
> Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. &#8220;As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.&#8221; http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
> 
> 
> &#8220;As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.&#8221;
> US Department of the Treasury
> 
> 
> The benefits from Reaganomics:
> a.	The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate&#8230;compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
> b.	Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
> c.	Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
> d.	Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
> e.	The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)             FDsys - Browse ERP
> f.	Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation.  Dinesh D&#8217;Souza, &#8220;Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,&#8221; p. 116
> 
> 
> b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan&#8217;s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan&#8217;s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his &#8220;Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,&#8221; along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They singled out Reagan&#8217;s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who &#8220;was there.&#8221;
> 
> The plutocrats idolize Reagan because he cut taxes on the wealthy -- on income, capital gains, interest, and dividends -- and increased taxes on working people, including raising the self-employment (SECA) tax rate by 60%. He made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), and school lunch programs. Mark Hertsgaard (On Bended Knee: the Press and the Reagan Presidency) called it arguably the &#8220;single greatest government-led transfer of wealth in history, and in the direction of the top two percent;&#8221; the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third under Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> The result is an enduring, entitled class of individuals who believe that work should be taxed, but wealth should not, and probably, like Reagan that &#8216;The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.&#8217; They control the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> Their revisionist history makes Reagan into a small-government fiscal conservative, but he actually grew the government by 53% (Mises Institute), increasing military expenditures by 27% and creating another new department, Veterans&#8217; Affairs. He never submitted a balanced budget and ended up tripling the national debt to $3 trillion. His S&L bailout cost 2.4 times more to fix (relative to GDP) than Bush&#8217;s financial crisis. The Washington Post reported in Reagan's last year that "In less than a decade, the world's largest creditor nation has become its leading debtor&#8230;.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> Never mentioned in the current hagiography is that he amnestied 3 million illegal aliens; that among his most important advisers was an astrologer (Joan Quigley) whom Nancy consulted daily about major decisions; and that he regularly fabricated stories, including about personally &#8220;liberating&#8221; Nazi concentration camps (he never left California).
> 
> 
> 
> Other inconvenient facts about Reagan have disappeared into the memory hole: he provided aid to Saddam Hussein after his unprovoked attacked on Iran and despite Saddam&#8217;s known use of chemical weapons; he funneled money and arms to the Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan who later morphed into al Qaeda; his sending Marines ashore in Lebanon led to the deaths of 241 Marines; and, he invaded tiny Grenada on the flimsiest of pretenses.
> 
> Reagan illegally traded weapons to Iran for American hostages (which led to more Americans being kidnapped) and repeatedly lied about it.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...




cant say it enough,sure is fun watching you had the reaganut worshippers their asses to them on a platter/.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Petition seeks to rename Ronald Reagan airport after Tim Howard | TheHill
> 
> President Reagan seems to be becoming part of American humor. The brunt of a joke.



the ones awake and not in denial are slowly waking up.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.
> 
> 
> ...Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is even less credible than yourself. He talks about polls that he can't link doubting, no doubt, that idiots would link his articles to those who could actually think for themselves.
> 
> The failure is just as much yours as the fool you linked.
> 
> Failures really don't like Reagan, and I can't imagine why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan's job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range
> 
> Ronald Reagan From the People?s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review
> 
> 
> However, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush have enjoyed substantial increases in public approval since leaving office, particularly when they have stayed out of partisan politics.
> 
> Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest
> 
> 
> 
> Poppy Bushs approval rating hit a low of 29 percent in midsummer 1992, a steep decline of 60 percent in 16 months.
> 
> 5 Presidents With the Biggest Approval Rating Declines | Listosaur | Hungry for Knowledge
> 
> 
> *NOW USING YOUR BRAIN, IS IT LESS LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY THAT THE FACT IS REAGAN WAS LIKED LESS THAN EVEN CARTER IN 1992, BEFORE THE MYTHICAL REMAKING OF HIM BY RIGHT WINGERS? LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years  which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987  as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the failed policies of Reagan and Bush. As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.
> 
> Today, though, youd never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagans image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.
> 
> 
> When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter - Salon.com
Click to expand...


Got to say it again because it is so much true.never gets old watching you hadn the reaganut trolls their asses to them on a platter. they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three Gallup ratings in 1990, 1992, and 1993 showed Reagan's job approval rating in the 50% to 54% range
> 
> Ronald Reagan From the People?s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review
> 
> 
> However, Reagan, Ford, Carter, and George H.W. Bush have enjoyed substantial increases in public approval since leaving office, particularly when they have stayed out of partisan politics.
> 
> Kennedy Still Highest-Rated Modern President, Nixon Lowest
> 
> 
> 
> Poppy Bushs approval rating hit a low of 29 percent in midsummer 1992, a steep decline of 60 percent in 16 months.
> 
> 5 Presidents With the Biggest Approval Rating Declines | Listosaur | Hungry for Knowledge
> 
> 
> *NOW USING YOUR BRAIN, IS IT LESS LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY THAT THE FACT IS REAGAN WAS LIKED LESS THAN EVEN CARTER IN 1992, BEFORE THE MYTHICAL REMAKING OF HIM BY RIGHT WINGERS? LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 1992, three years after he left the White House, Ronald Reagan was anything but a beloved former president. As a painful recession gripped the country, the public came to see the Reagan years  which featured a massive defense buildup, soaring deficits and even a stock market crash in 1987  as the source of their economic woes. Running for president that year, Bill Clinton promised to enact a clean break from the failed policies of Reagan and Bush. As Reagan prepared to speak at the Republican National Convention in August, a Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.
> 
> Today, though, youd never know any of this happened. In the two decades since it bottomed out, Reagans image has been resurrected, thanks largely to a relentless campaign from conservative activists.
> 
> 
> When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter - Salon.com
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think posting the same Salon article not once but twice is going to legitimize it or make you seem any more credible? Desperate historical revision was for the likes of the peasant population of post-Red October Russia.
> 
> Still, as with the likes of Camp, I despair the dumbing down of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it, Giving you CREDIBLE links having Gallup polls showing 50% approval ratings for Ronnie and 29% for Bush, doesn't allow you to believe Reagan hit 46% favorable  ratings, just before the GOP Convention in 1992? As the US economy was tanking?  lol
Click to expand...


He isnt called meathead for no reason.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got no room to talk about dumbing down. It was originally named National Airport and built by *FDR*. It became Washington National when Reagan gave up federal government ownership of the airport and became named Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport under Clinton. It is usually referred to as simply Reagan International.
> It was never referred to as the Washington, D.C. International Airport.
> 
> 
> 
> No, your dumbing down is apparent and not only with your tenuous grasp of history. To wit:
> 
> *For decades it was called Washington National Airport; it was renamed in 1998 to honor former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. *
> 
> Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This is an example of dumbing down. You can't deny it, too obvious. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A genuine dumb ass is one that goes on the attack and calls others dumb armed with nothing more than wikipedia for a source. National Airport was always National Airport until 1987 when the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority was established.
> Anyhow, here is a more reliable source:
> 
> History
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

:





JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks did much better with Reagan as President than with Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you just need to convince blacks of that.
> 
> Of course, you'll claim something about them being on a "Plantation" or some such shit.
> 
> unlike your typical right wing red state voter, who is poorer than shit.
Click to expand...


Blacks did so well under reagan that he made them all go poor in africa opposing the bill congress drew up to give them aid. crusader retard always helps prove what a lunatic he is with his own points.

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald_reagan_apartheid_south_africa/#


----------



## zen

I actually went to polls and voted "None of the Above" for several elections after Reagan...I don't sit them out, I go and let my disenchantment be heard...

I believe in Progress, Frank, but I'm no Progressive. Your knee-jerk assumption that anyone who doesn't admire Reagan must be a socialist is asinine...I am a small "d" small "r" democratic republican. I believe, as did our republican founders, that all human beings have a right to live their lives immune from domination, protected from domination outside the law (government's first duty) and protected from domination within the law by limits placed on the power of government.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

zen said:


> I actually went to polls and voted "None of the Above" for several elections after Reagan...I don't sit them out, I go and let my disenchantment be heard...
> 
> I believe in Progress, Frank, but I'm no Progressive. Your knee-jerk assumption that anyone who doesn't admire Reagan must be a socialist is asinine..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got to remember,as lunatic as the ramblings are of the other reaganut worshippers,Franks are 100 times more so in the fact he is a distant cousin of his.Thats why he takes it so personal more so than the others when you say ONE THING negative about him. going into meltdown mode throwing temper tantrems about it.He obviously has a lot of blood pressure pills handy when that happens to avoid going to the hospital and having heart attacks.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, SDI worked well enough to not be a failure, but that isn't really the point.  Dante does have a kernel of truth that Reagan's actions really did appall the extreme right and what would be the neocons.  Reagan didn't make any secret that he loathed nuclear weapons.  (that was much of the joke when he said on tv, not knowing the cameras were on, 'the bombing commences in ... minutes.")
> 
> Reagan was a liberal in terms of he shared the founders view that mankind inevitably was in an upward spiral towards personal liberation.  His religious views weren't all that different from Deists.  The notion that freedom was secured via mutually assured destruction of human kind was abhorrent.  But, he was such a staunch anti-communist, the RW didn't go there.  Moreover, Goldwater had been maligned by the Daisy commercial by LBJ.  Frankly, Goldwater was less a menace to unleash the holocaust than LBJ.
> 
> The impact of SDI was that Reagan and Gorby both knew the soviet generals would have to respond to an arms race, and the soviets couldn't afford it.  (Neither could we, but so much)  Whether the damn thing could stop 50-75-90% of warheads wasn't really the point.  The Soviets needed a lot more missles, that was the point.
> 
> By the mid 80s it was clear that the Soviet economy wasn't able to allocate capital quickly enough to compete in a post-technological world.  Reagan always distrusted the CIA analysis of their economy.  While the Soviets probably did grow gnp faster than we in the early 60s, there was no way they could compete in 1984.  As the saying went, if they can't provide citizens tampons, they are a third world country with nukes.
> 
> So, into his second term, having achieved a fair degree of conventional arms parity, and with a idealist distrust of MAD, and the economic evidence that his faith in neoliberal economics (Thatcherism) was justified, the old guy was a lot freer to be Reagan.  And Dante's right, there were political commentators on the right who weren't as great visionaries as Reagan, who didn't get that.
> 
> But, the economic views of Commanding Heights sort balance out Will and the gang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You meant to say Reagan's (one sided) Keynesian policies where he ramped up spending created an economy that did slightly better than the stagnant 1970's? He did this at the same time he cut revenues to the treasury  and taxes on the rich. Tripled US debt
> 
> 
> 
> SDI WORKED? Under Reagan? Got a link?
> 
> 
> This was the first successful test of the U.S. missile defense system in four attempts dating back to December, 2008.
> 
> Of the 16 tests of this defense system held thus far, eight hit the target and eight missed it.
> 
> The system was declared operational 10 years ago and has cost a total of $40 billion. It dates back to President Reagans Star Wars concept.
> 
> The defending missile is supposed to hit the incoming missile in mid-air. Like all the previous tests, this one was carefully staged.
> 
> Those launching the intercepting missile knew the targets exact dimensions, its time of launch, its trajectory, and its speed.
> 
> This information would not be available in time of war.
> 
> News & Views: Missile defense hits its target
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> exactly. also  the religious views that were told to us by the controlled media and what they ACTUALLy were are like night and day.The religious views of reagan that were crammed down our throuts were that he has a god fearing christian.he fooled people very well in that by wanting prayer in school.But this was the REAL Ronnies religious views.
> 
> Ronald Reagan: No Hero
> 
> Much of the activity of the Reagan years can be explained by the fact that Ronnie and Nancy were devout supporters of Satanists. So devout that they insisted the head of the satanic Temple of Set, Colonel Michael Aquino, visit the White House wearing his satanic high-priest robe. With Reagan's support Aquino was able to get Satanism recognized as a protected religious belief in the military. Aquino was investigated by the military as well as the San Francisco Police Dept. when children identified him as head of a "Devil Worship Club" that ritually molested, murdered and cannibalized children. The court document notes that several members of the Army thought there was probable cause to "Title" Aquino with offenses of indecent acts with a child, sodomy, conspiracy, kidnapping, and false swearing - but the case was dismissed under pressure from the highest levels.
> 
> Daughter Maureen Reagan was close to Larry King, head of the failed Franklin Community Credit Union, Republican darling and leader of a child abduction, pornography and prostitution ring. Larry King was well known in the 1980's for his lavish parties attended by Republican power-elite. Less well known was the fact that some of his events came with party favors of child sex-slaves. King was involved with the satanic CIA child abduction and mind control program that kidnapped Johnny Gosch while he was delivering newspapers.
> 
> The June 29, 1989 Washington Times ran an article under the headlines of "Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' with the kicker "Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.'' The article said that "A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite."
> 
> When the FBI and Omaha police refused to investigate allegations against King, the Nebraska State Legislature conducted an investigation that uncovered a satanic criminal trail that led to the what longtime CIA Director William Colby called "the highest levels." Fifteen of the people involved in the investigation died under mysterious circumstance, included William Colby - who was acting as a consultant to the investigation. King was ultimately convicted of fraud for his part in the theft of over $40 million from the credit union and served five years in prison but was never convicted of his more heinous offences.
> 
> The Republican party kept King in its innermost circle even after his indictment. He sang the Star Spangled Banner at the Republican National Convention in 1988 while under investigation. It wasn't until his arrest that the Republican party finally turned its back on him.
> 
> In 1998 & 1999, a U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska, heard testimony in the case of Paul A. Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King in which Bonacci charged that he had been ritualistically abused by the defendant, as part of a nationwide pedophile ring liked to powerful political figures in Washington and to elements of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Judge Warren K. Urbom ordered King, in Federal prison at the time, to pay $1 million in damages to Bonacci, in what Bonacci's attorney John DeCamp said was a clear signal that "the evidence presented was credible."
> 
> America's worst financial disaster since the Great Depression occured under Reagan with the collapse of the Savings & Loan system. Nearly $500 billion was looted from thousands of Savings & Loans by a criminal ring that included the Mafia, CIA and the Bush family. Neil Bush was involved in the collapse of Silverado Savings & Loan but never served any jail time. By the time the Federal government and elite is done milking the scam further, US taxpayers will have paid well over a trillion dollars.
> 
> The full extent of Reagan's crimes may never be known because George W. Bush issued an executive order which countermands the 1978 Presidential Records Act and prevents the release of 68,000 pages of Reagan era documents. Given that Reagan lacked the intelligence to carry out some of the more elaborate crimes, the records are likely to shed light on the true role of the Bush crime family.
> 
> Let us remember Reagan as he really was...
> 
> Liar
> Thief
> Mass murderer
> Supporter of abortion
> War criminal
> Traitor of the American people
> Destroyer of freedom
> Destroyer of the environment
> Corporate whore
> Supporter of Satanists and child murderers
> While Reagan may have not been entirely aware of what he was doing and how his decisions would impact the world, he was also much more sinister than the media has portrayed him.
> 
> this link here is along read but it exposes the REAL ronald reagan though.its well worth the read.
> 
> A Despository of Information: Ronald Reagan
> 
> whats really funny though is the foolish sheep who hate obama so much but love reagan.Like alex jones says so well in this link,Obama has done everything that reagan did.reagan was a far better actor though so he fooled people better than obozo does.
> 
> » The Great Reagan Legacy? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Click to expand...


Hey Dad,this was the only post of mine I noticed you dit not comment on,did you read through it and the links as well? I know the reaganut worshippers wont so I hope you at least will.thanks.


----------



## Dad2three

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You meant to say Reagan's (one sided) Keynesian policies where he ramped up spending created an economy that did slightly better than the stagnant 1970's? He did this at the same time he cut revenues to the treasury  and taxes on the rich. Tripled US debt
> 
> 
> 
> SDI WORKED? Under Reagan? Got a link?
> 
> 
> This was the first successful test of the U.S. missile defense system in four attempts dating back to December, 2008.
> 
> Of the 16 tests of this defense system held thus far, eight hit the target and eight missed it.
> 
> The system was declared operational 10 years ago and has cost a total of $40 billion. It dates back to President Reagans Star Wars concept.
> 
> The defending missile is supposed to hit the incoming missile in mid-air. Like all the previous tests, this one was carefully staged.
> 
> Those launching the intercepting missile knew the targets exact dimensions, its time of launch, its trajectory, and its speed.
> 
> This information would not be available in time of war.
> 
> News & Views: Missile defense hits its target
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly. also  the religious views that were told to us by the controlled media and what they ACTUALLy were are like night and day.The religious views of reagan that were crammed down our throuts were that he has a god fearing christian.he fooled people very well in that by wanting prayer in school.But this was the REAL Ronnies religious views.
> 
> Ronald Reagan: No Hero
> 
> Much of the activity of the Reagan years can be explained by the fact that Ronnie and Nancy were devout supporters of Satanists. So devout that they insisted the head of the satanic Temple of Set, Colonel Michael Aquino, visit the White House wearing his satanic high-priest robe. With Reagan's support Aquino was able to get Satanism recognized as a protected religious belief in the military. Aquino was investigated by the military as well as the San Francisco Police Dept. when children identified him as head of a "Devil Worship Club" that ritually molested, murdered and cannibalized children. The court document notes that several members of the Army thought there was probable cause to "Title" Aquino with offenses of indecent acts with a child, sodomy, conspiracy, kidnapping, and false swearing - but the case was dismissed under pressure from the highest levels.
> 
> Daughter Maureen Reagan was close to Larry King, head of the failed Franklin Community Credit Union, Republican darling and leader of a child abduction, pornography and prostitution ring. Larry King was well known in the 1980's for his lavish parties attended by Republican power-elite. Less well known was the fact that some of his events came with party favors of child sex-slaves. King was involved with the satanic CIA child abduction and mind control program that kidnapped Johnny Gosch while he was delivering newspapers.
> 
> The June 29, 1989 Washington Times ran an article under the headlines of "Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' with the kicker "Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.'' The article said that "A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite."
> 
> When the FBI and Omaha police refused to investigate allegations against King, the Nebraska State Legislature conducted an investigation that uncovered a satanic criminal trail that led to the what longtime CIA Director William Colby called "the highest levels." Fifteen of the people involved in the investigation died under mysterious circumstance, included William Colby - who was acting as a consultant to the investigation. King was ultimately convicted of fraud for his part in the theft of over $40 million from the credit union and served five years in prison but was never convicted of his more heinous offences.
> 
> The Republican party kept King in its innermost circle even after his indictment. He sang the Star Spangled Banner at the Republican National Convention in 1988 while under investigation. It wasn't until his arrest that the Republican party finally turned its back on him.
> 
> In 1998 & 1999, a U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska, heard testimony in the case of Paul A. Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King in which Bonacci charged that he had been ritualistically abused by the defendant, as part of a nationwide pedophile ring liked to powerful political figures in Washington and to elements of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Judge Warren K. Urbom ordered King, in Federal prison at the time, to pay $1 million in damages to Bonacci, in what Bonacci's attorney John DeCamp said was a clear signal that "the evidence presented was credible."
> 
> America's worst financial disaster since the Great Depression occured under Reagan with the collapse of the Savings & Loan system. Nearly $500 billion was looted from thousands of Savings & Loans by a criminal ring that included the Mafia, CIA and the Bush family. Neil Bush was involved in the collapse of Silverado Savings & Loan but never served any jail time. By the time the Federal government and elite is done milking the scam further, US taxpayers will have paid well over a trillion dollars.
> 
> The full extent of Reagan's crimes may never be known because George W. Bush issued an executive order which countermands the 1978 Presidential Records Act and prevents the release of 68,000 pages of Reagan era documents. Given that Reagan lacked the intelligence to carry out some of the more elaborate crimes, the records are likely to shed light on the true role of the Bush crime family.
> 
> Let us remember Reagan as he really was...
> 
> Liar
> Thief
> Mass murderer
> Supporter of abortion
> War criminal
> Traitor of the American people
> Destroyer of freedom
> Destroyer of the environment
> Corporate whore
> Supporter of Satanists and child murderers
> While Reagan may have not been entirely aware of what he was doing and how his decisions would impact the world, he was also much more sinister than the media has portrayed him.
> 
> this link here is along read but it exposes the REAL ronald reagan though.its well worth the read.
> 
> A Despository of Information: Ronald Reagan
> 
> whats really funny though is the foolish sheep who hate obama so much but love reagan.Like alex jones says so well in this link,Obama has done everything that reagan did.reagan was a far better actor though so he fooled people better than obozo does.
> 
> » The Great Reagan Legacy? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Dad,this was the only post of mine I noticed you dit not comment on,did you read through it and the links as well? I know the reaganut worshippers wont so I hope you at least will.thanks.
Click to expand...


Read about a dozen books on the misery of Reagan/Reaganomics, I have a minor in history, I recognize the horrors of the conservatives/libertarians policies!


----------



## Meathead

You guys are not failures because of Reagan. You would have been anyway. When you come to that realization then you can actually work on closure.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> You guys are not failures because of Reagan. You would have been anyway. When you come to that realization then you can actually work on closure.



Actually, it's the country that is weaker, not us.  

Reagan turned us from a Creditor to a Debtor Nation.


----------



## Oldstyle

Interesting concept...correct me if I'm wrong, Joe...but last time I checked, it's Congress that controls the purse strings...it's Congress that controls spending.  So if Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil for the bulk of his Presidency...wouldn't that mean that Democrats controlled spending just as much as Dutch Reagan?

Or are you trying to make the point that Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats just rubber stamped anything that Reagan wanted?


----------



## Dad2three

Oldstyle said:


> Interesting concept...correct me if I'm wrong, Joe...but last time I checked, it's Congress that controls the purse strings...it's Congress that controls spending.  So if Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil for the bulk of his Presidency...wouldn't that mean that Democrats controlled spending just as much as Dutch Reagan?
> 
> Or are you trying to make the point that Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats just rubber stamped anything that Reagan wanted?




So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

One Obama deficit is bigger than all of Reagan's combined. If you judge Reagan poorly for "his" deficits you must think Obama is the biggest fail evet


----------



## Oldstyle

Dad2three said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting concept...correct me if I'm wrong, Joe...but last time I checked, it's Congress that controls the purse strings...it's Congress that controls spending.  So if Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil for the bulk of his Presidency...wouldn't that mean that Democrats controlled spending just as much as Dutch Reagan?
> 
> Or are you trying to make the point that Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats just rubber stamped anything that Reagan wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?
Click to expand...


Normally that would be the case...but when you've got a President that essentially bypasses the Congress...then Congress becomes an afterthought.  Barack Obama has decided that we should have a fourth branch of Government besides the Supreme Court, the Congress and the White House.  He thinks that governmental agencies such as the EPA and the IRS should make and enforce law.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dad2three said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting concept...correct me if I'm wrong, Joe...but last time I checked, it's Congress that controls the purse strings...it's Congress that controls spending.  So if Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil for the bulk of his Presidency...wouldn't that mean that Democrats controlled spending just as much as Dutch Reagan?
> 
> Or are you trying to make the point that Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats just rubber stamped anything that Reagan wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?
Click to expand...


Funny how Reagan could work with Congress...Clinton could work with Congress...Bush could work with Congress...but Obama can't and it's all the fault of Congress!

Even funnier is that we DIDN'T elect Mitt Romney who had a proven track record of working across the aisle when he was a Republican Governor in a solidly Democratic State.


----------



## Indeependent

Oldstyle said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting concept...correct me if I'm wrong, Joe...but last time I checked, it's Congress that controls the purse strings...it's Congress that controls spending.  So if Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil for the bulk of his Presidency...wouldn't that mean that Democrats controlled spending just as much as Dutch Reagan?
> 
> Or are you trying to make the point that Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats just rubber stamped anything that Reagan wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan could work with Congress...Clinton could work with Congress...Bush could work with Congress...but Obama can't and it's all the fault of Congress!
> 
> Even funnier is that we DIDN'T elect Mitt Romney who had a proven track record of working across the aisle when he was a Republican Governor in a solidly Democratic State.
Click to expand...


There is way too much money at stake in the post-Credit Default Swap Crash era.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> One Obama deficit is bigger than all of Reagan's combined. If you judge Reagan poorly for "his" deficits you must think Obama is the biggest fail evet



Let me know when Obama triples the debt like Reagan 


(Bush) Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits

Economic Recovery Measures, Financial Rescues Have Only Temporary Impact

Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted in 2008-2010  the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues  for todays record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted some years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBOs and other organizations budget projections.

*Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration  tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan  accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs*


Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Dad2three

Oldstyle said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting concept...correct me if I'm wrong, Joe...but last time I checked, it's Congress that controls the purse strings...it's Congress that controls spending.  So if Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil for the bulk of his Presidency...wouldn't that mean that Democrats controlled spending just as much as Dutch Reagan?
> 
> Or are you trying to make the point that Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats just rubber stamped anything that Reagan wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan could work with Congress...Clinton could work with Congress...Bush could work with Congress...but Obama can't and it's all the fault of Congress!
> 
> Even funnier is that we DIDN'T elect Mitt Romney who had a proven track record of working across the aisle when he was a Republican Governor in a solidly Democratic State.
Click to expand...



Got it, Clinton the guy who the GOP fought EVERY step of the way, 'worked with' the GOP Congress *shaking head*

Shows how extreme the GOP has become the past 20 years


*Lets just say it: The Republicans are the problem.*


The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

*When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the countrys challenges.*

Both sides do it or There is plenty of blame to go around are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.


*It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate  think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel  are virtually extinct.*

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base.



Let?s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post


----------



## Oldstyle

Dad2three said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan could work with Congress...Clinton could work with Congress...Bush could work with Congress...but Obama can't and it's all the fault of Congress!
> 
> Even funnier is that we DIDN'T elect Mitt Romney who had a proven track record of working across the aisle when he was a Republican Governor in a solidly Democratic State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, Clinton the guy who the GOP fought EVERY step of the way, 'worked with' the GOP Congress *shaking head*
> 
> Shows how extreme the GOP has become the past 20 years
> 
> 
> *Lets just say it: The Republicans are the problem.*
> 
> 
> The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
> 
> *When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the countrys challenges.*
> 
> Both sides do it or There is plenty of blame to go around are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
> 
> 
> *It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate  think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel  are virtually extinct.*
> 
> The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base.
> 
> 
> 
> Let?s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


You know what?  When you constantly declare that everyone but you is at fault...it's usually time to step back and ask yourself if maybe YOU'RE the problem and NOT everyone else!

As I said before...Reagan worked things out with O'Neal...Clinton worked things out with Gingrich...Bush worked things out with Pelosi...but for some reason Barack Obama can't work ANYTHING out with the GOP House!  What is "clear" is that Barry doesn't like to compromise.  He likes getting his way.  When he doesn't get his way...he starts accusing his opponents of being "obstructionists".  Well, the reality is that those GOP House members are not there to help Barack Obama push a progressive agenda.  I'm sorry...but they AREN'T!  So if Obama really WAS the intelligent guy that all you folks on the left declared that he was...then he'd understand that in order for the country to function that he's going to have to come to the table and make deals.  He's going to have to learn to do something that so far he's shown absolutely ZERO aptitude for...the building of bi-partisan coalitions.  That takes hard work.  It takes working behind closed doors to hammer out compromise and refraining from publicly attacking the other party with EVERY speech you give!


----------



## Dad2three

Oldstyle said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan could work with Congress...Clinton could work with Congress...Bush could work with Congress...but Obama can't and it's all the fault of Congress!
> 
> Even funnier is that we DIDN'T elect Mitt Romney who had a proven track record of working across the aisle when he was a Republican Governor in a solidly Democratic State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, Clinton the guy who the GOP fought EVERY step of the way, 'worked with' the GOP Congress *shaking head*
> 
> Shows how extreme the GOP has become the past 20 years
> 
> 
> *Let&#8217;s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.*
> 
> 
> The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
> 
> *When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country&#8217;s challenges.*
> 
> &#8220;Both sides do it&#8221; or &#8220;There is plenty of blame to go around&#8221; are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
> 
> 
> *It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate &#8212; think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel &#8212; are virtually extinct.*
> 
> The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base.
> 
> 
> 
> Let?s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what?  When you constantly declare that everyone but you is at fault...it's usually time to step back and ask yourself if maybe YOU'RE the problem and NOT everyone else!
> 
> As I said before...Reagan worked things out with O'Neal...Clinton worked things out with Gingrich...Bush worked things out with Pelosi...but for some reason Barack Obama can't work ANYTHING out with the GOP House!  What is "clear" is that Barry doesn't like to compromise.  He likes getting his way.  When he doesn't get his way...he starts accusing his opponents of being "obstructionists".  Well, the reality is that those GOP House members are not there to help Barack Obama push a progressive agenda.  I'm sorry...but they AREN'T!  So if Obama really WAS the intelligent guy that all you folks on the left declared that he was...then he'd understand that in order for the country to function that he's going to have to come to the table and make deals.  He's going to have to learn to do something that so far he's shown absolutely ZERO aptitude for...the building of bi-partisan coalitions.  That takes hard work.  It takes working behind closed doors to hammer out compromise and refraining from publicly attacking the other party with EVERY speech you give!
Click to expand...


Weird, it seems like 'working things out' with Clinton was $40+ million on investigations and impeachment and closing down Gov't THEN the GOP learned  the US wasn't 'with them'

Dubya worked with Pelosi? Oh I guess why he had one veto under the GOP Congress for 6 years (stem cell, lol) and 11 for the Dems in 2 years?

GOP has been so effective at obstruction Obama has only had 2 

GOP/TP have become the outliner party...


Compromise rulings on The Obameter

Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers

Increase capital gains and dividends taxes from 15 to 20 percent for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000

Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups

Expand the earned income tax credit

Double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program that encourages manufacturing efficiency

Include environmental and labor standards in trade agreements

Make permanent the Research & Development tax credit

Establish a small business initiative for rural America

Create a tax credit of $500 for workers

Enforce pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules

Create more public-private business incubators for poor communities

Freeze the 2009 estate tax law




SIX PLUS MORE PAGES HERE

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/compromise/


----------



## gipper

Dad2three said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan could work with Congress...Clinton could work with Congress...Bush could work with Congress...but Obama can't and it's all the fault of Congress!
> 
> Even funnier is that we DIDN'T elect Mitt Romney who had a proven track record of working across the aisle when he was a Republican Governor in a solidly Democratic State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, Clinton the guy who the GOP fought EVERY step of the way, 'worked with' the GOP Congress *shaking head*
> 
> Shows how extreme the GOP has become the past 20 years
> 
> 
> *Lets just say it: The Republicans are the problem.*
> 
> 
> The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
> 
> *When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the countrys challenges.*
> 
> Both sides do it or There is plenty of blame to go around are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
> 
> 
> *It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate  think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel  are virtually extinct.*
> 
> The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base.
> 
> 
> 
> Let?s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


You really believe the R party is extremist?  Really?

Do you get your information from MSLSD and the DNC (pretty much one in the same).

Apparently if an R congress does not rubber stamp everything your Messiah demands, they are to be considered extreme.

The R party is a progressive party...apparently not progressive enough for you though.


----------



## regent

When Obama was elected the Republicans announced their goal. shut down the government, and to that end Republicans have been fairly successful. It seems like this tactic to  shut down government if not elected, is not good for the nation. Will it now become a Democratic tactic also?  Should we now expect this shut-down-the-government after every election? 
Is the answer to this shut-down-the-government to only elect Republicans in the future?  
Why can't Republicans just win elections on their own and not shut down the country?


----------



## Meathead

regent said:


> When Obama was elected the Republicans announced their goal. shut down the government, and to that end Republicans have been fairly successful. It seems like this tactic to  shut down government if not elected, is not good for the nation. Will it now become a Democratic tactic also?  Should we now expect this shut-down-the-government after every election?
> Is the answer to this shut-down-the-government to only elect Republicans in the future?
> Why can't Republicans just win elections on their own and not shut down the country?


You can't shut down the country, as you put it, if you haven't won elections.

Obama's pretty much fudged up everything he's touched. The sense of shutting down government is pretty sound. If you expect anything else in a lame-duck period, you're going to be disappointed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?




Funny, you hack Communists blame Bush for 9/11, when he was in office less than 8 months.

But then, you're not rational, you are a paid demagogue.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since



BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yeah, the ThinkProgress script.

Yeah, we've never heard that one before....


----------



## Uncensored2008

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was simply never REALLY in charge of anything...when he found out about Iran/Contra and that his people really had been running drugs and using the money to buy and trade guns/hostages with Iran he spent DAYS in his pajamas, watching his old movies.
> 
> Reagan talked about freedom, he gave us the drug war. He talked about Rule of Law, he gave us Iran/Contra. He talked about fiscal responsibility, he ran $300 billion dollar deficits, He talked about smaller government and expanded government in both size and scope...not-so-great a record. I voted for him, twice, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually voted for him twice also, then I grew a brain and never have voted for a GOPer since
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> Walks in with the "I Used ta be a Republican" Script!!!
> 
> Priceless!!!
Click to expand...



I guess his handler failed to tell him that JoeB Stalin and Fakey JakeStarky were already dispatched with that script....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, ALMOST  a whole year  (OK, 8 months) before Harding//Coolidge's big crash happened? I know, lets blame Hoover right? lol
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't be honest and all you have is AEI talking points trying to rewrite the REAL cause of the conservatives depression!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude crusader retard IS correct that Hoover is to blame for that.Calvin Coolidge was our last decent republican president we had.the last one who wasnt corrupt and evil who served the people. Crusader retard is right about that.he just lives in denial that Reagan at the time was the most corrupt president we ever had till the rest of them afterwards started topping him and I see you STILL havent watch that video The Obama deception yet.  Looks like I am going tohave to ask THE LIQ since i cant get an answer from you on that,
> 
> Hoover is indeed to blame for that indeed..Harding and Coolidge had us on the right track and Hoover came and wrecked the economy.thats a historic fact.Every president since Hoover other than JFK was a puppet for the bankers and served them. american became a facist dictatership once Hoover got in office.we never recoverd after that,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?
Click to expand...


The 20's were a failure?

LOL

What I love about you paid Progressive Talking Points Spewers is there's no end to the lies you must tell. If you had any shame or brains, you'd be embarrassed


----------



## regent

Meathead said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Obama was elected the Republicans announced their goal. shut down the government, and to that end Republicans have been fairly successful. It seems like this tactic to  shut down government if not elected, is not good for the nation. Will it now become a Democratic tactic also?  Should we now expect this shut-down-the-government after every election?
> Is the answer to this shut-down-the-government to only elect Republicans in the future?
> Why can't Republicans just win elections on their own and not shut down the country?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't shut down the country, as you put it, if you haven't won elections.
> 
> Obama's pretty much fudged up everything he's touched. The sense of shutting down government is pretty sound. If you expect anything else in a lame-duck period, you're going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...


So If you win one half of one branch then it's OK to shut down government? 
This is not a lame duck period, there has been no election and no one is serving that has not been reelected.


----------



## Meathead

regent said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Obama was elected the Republicans announced their goal. shut down the government, and to that end Republicans have been fairly successful. It seems like this tactic to  shut down government if not elected, is not good for the nation. Will it now become a Democratic tactic also?  Should we now expect this shut-down-the-government after every election?
> Is the answer to this shut-down-the-government to only elect Republicans in the future?
> Why can't Republicans just win elections on their own and not shut down the country?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't shut down the country, as you put it, if you haven't won elections.
> 
> Obama's pretty much fudged up everything he's touched. The sense of shutting down government is pretty sound. If you expect anything else in a lame-duck period, you're going to be disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So If you win one half of one branch then it's OK to shut down government?
> This is not a lame duck period, there has been no election and no one is serving that has not been reelected.
Click to expand...

Yup, if your opponent is weak and unwilling to negotiate you damn well impede. That's politics/life.

I refer you to the second definition of "lame duck". Obama has been one effectively for at least 4 years.

_: an elected official whose time in an office or position will soon end

*: a person, company, etc., that is weak or unsuccessful and needs help
*_


----------



## CrusaderFrank

How Progressives "Think"

The Coolidge 20's: Couldn't find an unemployed person. Bad! BAD! BAD!

The FDR Depression: 20% average unemployment over his first 2 terms. The Messiah has returned to save Capitalism!!

Pretty fucked in the head, right?


----------



## Dad2three

gipper said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how Reagan could work with Congress...Clinton could work with Congress...Bush could work with Congress...but Obama can't and it's all the fault of Congress!
> 
> Even funnier is that we DIDN'T elect Mitt Romney who had a proven track record of working across the aisle when he was a Republican Governor in a solidly Democratic State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, Clinton the guy who the GOP fought EVERY step of the way, 'worked with' the GOP Congress *shaking head*
> 
> Shows how extreme the GOP has become the past 20 years
> 
> 
> *Lets just say it: The Republicans are the problem.*
> 
> 
> The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
> 
> *When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the countrys challenges.*
> 
> Both sides do it or There is plenty of blame to go around are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
> 
> 
> *It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate  think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel  are virtually extinct.*
> 
> The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base.
> 
> 
> 
> Let?s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really believe the R party is extremist?  Really?
> 
> Do you get your information from MSLSD and the DNC (pretty much one in the same).
> 
> Apparently if an R congress does not rubber stamp everything your Messiah demands, they are to be considered extreme.
> 
> The R party is a progressive party...apparently not progressive enough for you though.
Click to expand...


The problem with the GOP is they have the TP extremists like you less than 20% with undue influence over them, not relative to their size, but money backing by those 'populist' Kochs, Heritage, AEI, etc...



Weird how RINO has been used for about 20 years and 'liberal' and moderates have basically been forced out. Yeah, I know, the only guys you can run for the national office of Prez isn't the TP flavor, BECAUSE the rest of US don't like your extreme bullshit! Weird how Failin Palin and Ryan 'appealed' to the low informed TP


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, Clinton the guy who the GOP fought EVERY step of the way, 'worked with' the GOP Congress *shaking head*
> 
> Shows how extreme the GOP has become the past 20 years
> 
> 
> *Let&#8217;s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.*
> 
> 
> The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
> 
> *When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country&#8217;s challenges.*
> 
> &#8220;Both sides do it&#8221; or &#8220;There is plenty of blame to go around&#8221; are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
> 
> 
> *It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate &#8212; think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel &#8212; are virtually extinct.*
> 
> The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base.
> 
> 
> 
> Let?s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe the R party is extremist?  Really?
> 
> Do you get your information from MSLSD and the DNC (pretty much one in the same).
> 
> Apparently if an R congress does not rubber stamp everything your Messiah demands, they are to be considered extreme.
> 
> The R party is a progressive party...apparently not progressive enough for you though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with the GOP is they have the TP extremists like you less than 20% with undue influence over them, not relative to their size, but money backing by those 'populist' Kochs, Heritage, AEI, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how RINO has been used for about 20 years and 'liberal' and moderates have basically been forced out. Yeah, I know, the only guys you can run for the national office of Prez isn't the TP flavor, BECAUSE the rest of US don't like your extreme bullshit! Weird how Failin Palin and Ryan 'appealed' to the low informed TP
Click to expand...


You think repeating the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT STORY we heard from Jake, Bucs90 and JosefBStalin is going to impress us this time??

LOL

Hope you getting paid well for this


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you hack Communists blame Bush for 9/11, when he was in office less than 8 months.
> 
> But then, you're not rational, you are a paid demagogue.
Click to expand...


LOL, NATIONAL ECONOMY versus ignoring 40+ PDB's and CIA warnings of an 'imminent attack'?


*George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB
Bush to briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now." *


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude crusader retard IS correct that Hoover is to blame for that.Calvin Coolidge was our last decent republican president we had.the last one who wasnt corrupt and evil who served the people. Crusader retard is right about that.he just lives in denial that Reagan at the time was the most corrupt president we ever had till the rest of them afterwards started topping him and I see you STILL havent watch that video The Obama deception yet.  Looks like I am going tohave to ask THE LIQ since i cant get an answer from you on that,
> 
> Hoover is indeed to blame for that indeed..Harding and Coolidge had us on the right track and Hoover came and wrecked the economy.thats a historic fact.Every president since Hoover other than JFK was a puppet for the bankers and served them. american became a facist dictatership once Hoover got in office.we never recoverd after that,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 20's were a failure?
> 
> LOL
> 
> What I love about you paid Progressive Talking Points Spewers is there's no end to the lies you must tell. If you had any shame or brains, you'd be embarrassed
Click to expand...


Yep for most everyone when it ended, you know like Bush's ponzi scheme too?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 20's were a failure?
> 
> LOL
> 
> What I love about you paid Progressive Talking Points Spewers is there's no end to the lies you must tell. If you had any shame or brains, you'd be embarrassed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep for most everyone when it ended, you know like Bush's ponzi scheme too?
Click to expand...


You mean after the Fed decided to strangle the US economy, right?

You mean under Hoover and not Coolidge right?


----------



## Camp

Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


sites.google.com/site/salk1920s/economics/laissez-faire


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> How Progressives "Think"
> 
> The Coolidge 20's: Couldn't find an unemployed person. Bad! BAD! BAD!
> 
> The FDR Depression: 20% average unemployment over his first 2 terms. The Messiah has returned to save Capitalism!!
> 
> Pretty fucked in the head, right?



MORE conservative myth making, I'm shocked

You realize the 1920's mirrored Dubya's period right? Cheap and easy credit without regard top regulators or the bubble economy they created?

When the lack of demand (because of low wages) that had been created because of the war interrupted the Harding/Coolidge bubble,  ARTIFICIALLY built on the lack of demand of the war period, then the Banksters saw the war bond money and decided to allow the average person to invest by leverage, it popped

FDR? Steady increase every year, until he listened to the GO/conservative deficit hawks in 1937 and cut spending 10% and took US back into the GOP great depression!


----------



## Dad2three

Camp said:


> Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> 
> sites.google.com/site/salk1920s/economics/laissez-faire



Myths and fairy tales. Most people realize this after 6-7 minutes in the real world after high school. Weird the libertarians can't!


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 20's were a failure?
> 
> LOL
> 
> What I love about you paid Progressive Talking Points Spewers is there's no end to the lies you must tell. If you had any shame or brains, you'd be embarrassed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep for most everyone when it ended, you know like Bush's ponzi scheme too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean after the Fed decided to strangle the US economy, right?
> 
> You mean under Hoover and not Coolidge right?
Click to expand...


Yeah, same as Obama did right? NOT that US household debt doubled in 7 years under Dubya, he stripped the US treasury of trillions AS he went o wars AND gave US a Medicare expansion that was UNFUNDED and costs as much as Obamacares this decade according to the CBO, no, it's ALWAYS the guy needing to clean up the 'laizze affair' garbage (or closest to it) that gets the blame from low informed ideologues like you!


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe the R party is extremist?  Really?
> 
> Do you get your information from MSLSD and the DNC (pretty much one in the same).
> 
> Apparently if an R congress does not rubber stamp everything your Messiah demands, they are to be considered extreme.
> 
> The R party is a progressive party...apparently not progressive enough for you though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the GOP is they have the TP extremists like you less than 20% with undue influence over them, not relative to their size, but money backing by those 'populist' Kochs, Heritage, AEI, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how RINO has been used for about 20 years and 'liberal' and moderates have basically been forced out. Yeah, I know, the only guys you can run for the national office of Prez isn't the TP flavor, BECAUSE the rest of US don't like your extreme bullshit! Weird how Failin Palin and Ryan 'appealed' to the low informed TP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think repeating the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT STORY we heard from Jake, Bucs90 and JosefBStalin is going to impress us this time??
> 
> LOL
> 
> Hope you getting paid well for this
Click to expand...




I get it you are part of the type that doesn't let facts or data get in your way. TP/GOP was born at the time AFTER Dubya went hog wild on the debt/deficits and spending WHILE gutting revenues, US Corp taxes hit their lowest point in 40 years, US avg tax burden sunk to 1950's lows, but the black guy won so TP came out for 'good fiscal policies' lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly. also  the religious views that were told to us by the controlled media and what they ACTUALLy were are like night and day.The religious views of reagan that were crammed down our throuts were that he has a god fearing christian.he fooled people very well in that by wanting prayer in school.But this was the REAL Ronnies religious views.
> 
> Ronald Reagan: No Hero
> 
> Much of the activity of the Reagan years can be explained by the fact that Ronnie and Nancy were devout supporters of Satanists. So devout that they insisted the head of the satanic Temple of Set, Colonel Michael Aquino, visit the White House wearing his satanic high-priest robe. With Reagan's support Aquino was able to get Satanism recognized as a protected religious belief in the military. Aquino was investigated by the military as well as the San Francisco Police Dept. when children identified him as head of a "Devil Worship Club" that ritually molested, murdered and cannibalized children. The court document notes that several members of the Army thought there was probable cause to "Title" Aquino with offenses of indecent acts with a child, sodomy, conspiracy, kidnapping, and false swearing - but the case was dismissed under pressure from the highest levels.
> 
> Daughter Maureen Reagan was close to Larry King, head of the failed Franklin Community Credit Union, Republican darling and leader of a child abduction, pornography and prostitution ring. Larry King was well known in the 1980's for his lavish parties attended by Republican power-elite. Less well known was the fact that some of his events came with party favors of child sex-slaves. King was involved with the satanic CIA child abduction and mind control program that kidnapped Johnny Gosch while he was delivering newspapers.
> 
> The June 29, 1989 Washington Times ran an article under the headlines of "Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' with the kicker "Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.'' The article said that "A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite."
> 
> When the FBI and Omaha police refused to investigate allegations against King, the Nebraska State Legislature conducted an investigation that uncovered a satanic criminal trail that led to the what longtime CIA Director William Colby called "the highest levels." Fifteen of the people involved in the investigation died under mysterious circumstance, included William Colby - who was acting as a consultant to the investigation. King was ultimately convicted of fraud for his part in the theft of over $40 million from the credit union and served five years in prison but was never convicted of his more heinous offences.
> 
> The Republican party kept King in its innermost circle even after his indictment. He sang the Star Spangled Banner at the Republican National Convention in 1988 while under investigation. It wasn't until his arrest that the Republican party finally turned its back on him.
> 
> In 1998 & 1999, a U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska, heard testimony in the case of Paul A. Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King in which Bonacci charged that he had been ritualistically abused by the defendant, as part of a nationwide pedophile ring liked to powerful political figures in Washington and to elements of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Judge Warren K. Urbom ordered King, in Federal prison at the time, to pay $1 million in damages to Bonacci, in what Bonacci's attorney John DeCamp said was a clear signal that "the evidence presented was credible."
> 
> America's worst financial disaster since the Great Depression occured under Reagan with the collapse of the Savings & Loan system. Nearly $500 billion was looted from thousands of Savings & Loans by a criminal ring that included the Mafia, CIA and the Bush family. Neil Bush was involved in the collapse of Silverado Savings & Loan but never served any jail time. By the time the Federal government and elite is done milking the scam further, US taxpayers will have paid well over a trillion dollars.
> 
> The full extent of Reagan's crimes may never be known because George W. Bush issued an executive order which countermands the 1978 Presidential Records Act and prevents the release of 68,000 pages of Reagan era documents. Given that Reagan lacked the intelligence to carry out some of the more elaborate crimes, the records are likely to shed light on the true role of the Bush crime family.
> 
> Let us remember Reagan as he really was...
> 
> Liar
> Thief
> Mass murderer
> Supporter of abortion
> War criminal
> Traitor of the American people
> Destroyer of freedom
> Destroyer of the environment
> Corporate whore
> Supporter of Satanists and child murderers
> While Reagan may have not been entirely aware of what he was doing and how his decisions would impact the world, he was also much more sinister than the media has portrayed him.
> 
> this link here is along read but it exposes the REAL ronald reagan though.its well worth the read.
> 
> A Despository of Information: Ronald Reagan
> 
> whats really funny though is the foolish sheep who hate obama so much but love reagan.Like alex jones says so well in this link,Obama has done everything that reagan did.reagan was a far better actor though so he fooled people better than obozo does.
> 
> » The Great Reagan Legacy? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Dad,this was the only post of mine I noticed you dit not comment on,did you read through it and the links as well? I know the reaganut worshippers wont so I hope you at least will.thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read about a dozen books on the misery of Reagan/Reaganomics, I have a minor in history, I recognize the horrors of the conservatives/libertarians policies!
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

Meathead said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't shut down the country, as you put it, if you haven't won elections.
> 
> Obama's pretty much fudged up everything he's touched. The sense of shutting down government is pretty sound. If you expect anything else in a lame-duck period, you're going to be disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So If you win one half of one branch then it's OK to shut down government?
> This is not a lame duck period, there has been no election and no one is serving that has not been reelected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, if your opponent is weak and unwilling to negotiate you damn well impede. That's politics/life.
> 
> I refer you to the second definition of "lame duck". Obama has been one effectively for at least 4 years.
> 
> _: an elected official whose time in an office or position will soon end
> 
> *: a person, company, etc., that is weak or unsuccessful and needs help
> *_
Click to expand...


Obama will be a lame duck president when not reelected in the next presidential election, and remain a lame duck until January 20th of the following year.  School kids might be watching so....


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting concept...correct me if I'm wrong, Joe...but last time I checked, it's Congress that controls the purse strings...it's Congress that controls spending.  So if Reagan was working with Tip O'Neil for the bulk of his Presidency...wouldn't that mean that Democrats controlled spending just as much as Dutch Reagan?
> 
> Or are you trying to make the point that Tip O'Neal and his fellow Democrats just rubber stamped anything that Reagan wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's NOT the Prez policy (Obama) that matters but Congress? PLEASE make up your mind. Reagan had a GOP Senate for 6 years too, Dems?
Click to expand...


love the hypocrisy of trollstyle.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Hoover, in office for 8 months before the stock market crashed, was to blame for Harding/Coolidge's 'laizze affair' failure of the '20's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you hack Communists blame Bush for 9/11, when he was in office less than 8 months.
> 
> But then, you're not rational, you are a paid demagogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, NATIONAL ECONOMY versus ignoring 40+ PDB's and CIA warnings of an 'imminent attack'?
> 
> 
> *George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB
> Bush to briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now." *
Click to expand...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Today, 10:26 AM  
Remove user from ignore listMeathead  
This message is hidden because Meathead is on your ignore list.  

View Post  Today, 10:33 AM  
Remove user from ignore listUncensored2008  
This message is hidden because Uncensored2008 is on your ignore list.  

View Post  Today, 10:36 AM  
Remove user from ignore listUncensored2008  
This message is hidden because Uncensored2008 is on your ignore list.  

View Post  Today, 10:38 AM  
Remove user from ignore listUncensored2008  
This message is hidden because Uncensored2008 is on your ignore list.  

View Post  Today, 10:43 AM  
Remove user from ignore listCrusaderFrank  


five farts in a row from the disinfo trolls.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Progressives "Think"
> 
> The Coolidge 20's: Couldn't find an unemployed person. Bad! BAD! BAD!
> 
> The FDR Depression: 20% average unemployment over his first 2 terms. The Messiah has returned to save Capitalism!!
> 
> Pretty fucked in the head, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE conservative myth making, I'm shocked
> 
> You realize the 1920's mirrored Dubya's period right? Cheap and easy credit without regard top regulators or the bubble economy they created?
> 
> When the lack of demand (because of low wages) that had been created because of the war interrupted the Harding/Coolidge bubble,  ARTIFICIALLY built on the lack of demand of the war period, then the Banksters saw the war bond money and decided to allow the average person to invest by leverage, it popped
> 
> FDR? Steady increase every year, until he listened to the GO/conservative deficit hawks in 1937 and cut spending 10% and took US back into the GOP great depression!
Click to expand...


The perfect Liberal Total Reality Inverse.

There was no Bubble economy in the 1920's we had at least two transformative technologies: Electricity and mass production driving the economy. 

Your "bankster" stuff is just ignorant Marxist spewage

The GOP had NOTHING to do with the FDR Depression, they were bystanders. FDR owns it all


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Today, 10:26 AM
> Remove user from ignore listMeathead
> This message is hidden because Meathead is on your ignore list.
> 
> View Post  Today, 10:33 AM
> Remove user from ignore listUncensored2008
> This message is hidden because Uncensored2008 is on your ignore list.
> 
> View Post  Today, 10:36 AM
> Remove user from ignore listUncensored2008
> This message is hidden because Uncensored2008 is on your ignore list.
> 
> View Post  Today, 10:38 AM
> Remove user from ignore listUncensored2008
> This message is hidden because Uncensored2008 is on your ignore list.
> 
> View Post  Today, 10:43 AM
> Remove user from ignore listCrusaderFrank
> 
> 
> five farts in a row from the disinfo trolls.



Tell your Boss HW Bush, he should go fuck himself


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the GOP is they have the TP extremists like you less than 20% with undue influence over them, not relative to their size, but money backing by those 'populist' Kochs, Heritage, AEI, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how RINO has been used for about 20 years and 'liberal' and moderates have basically been forced out. Yeah, I know, the only guys you can run for the national office of Prez isn't the TP flavor, BECAUSE the rest of US don't like your extreme bullshit! Weird how Failin Palin and Ryan 'appealed' to the low informed TP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think repeating the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT STORY we heard from Jake, Bucs90 and JosefBStalin is going to impress us this time??
> 
> LOL
> 
> Hope you getting paid well for this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it you are part of the type that doesn't let facts or data get in your way. TP/GOP was born at the time AFTER Dubya went hog wild on the debt/deficits and spending WHILE gutting revenues, US Corp taxes hit their lowest point in 40 years, US avg tax burden sunk to 1950's lows, but the black guy won so TP came out for 'good fiscal policies' lol
Click to expand...


I Loathe and Despise W. I've said that if Dante were still assigning seats to the Inferno W would be down with Brutus, Cassius and Judas as one of history's biggest traitors.

He had a chance to be the next Coolidge, the first time in 70 years we had an opportunity to try freedom but instead he fucked us


----------



## LA RAM FAN

3 farts in a row from you reagan cousin crusader retard. notice folks again his obsession  of reagan being exposed how he always comes on IMMEDIATELY when the truth about reagans corruption is exposed?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

regent said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So If you win one half of one branch then it's OK to shut down government?
> This is not a lame duck period, there has been no election and no one is serving that has not been reelected.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, if your opponent is weak and unwilling to negotiate you damn well impede. That's politics/life.
> 
> I refer you to the second definition of "lame duck". Obama has been one effectively for at least 4 years.
> 
> _: an elected official whose time in an office or position will soon end
> 
> *: a person, company, etc., that is weak or unsuccessful and needs help
> *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama will be a lame duck president when not reelected in the next presidential election, and remain a lame duck until January 20th of the following year.  School kids might be watching so....
Click to expand...


as always,the reaganut trolls retreat to Obama everytime they are cornered and backed up against the wall with facts they cant refute on reagans corruption.like clockwork.

meatheads drugged up MEATHEAD brain at work again.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> The problem with the GOP is they have the TP extremists like you less than 20% with undue influence over them, not relative to their size, but money backing by those 'populist' Kochs, Heritage, AEI, etc...



The problem with ThinkProgress monkeys is that you can't answer a direct question.

Any question will result in more off-topic talking points. You are nothing but a shit flinging feral baboon, when anyone questions the bullshit you post, you simply hurl and unrelated pile of shit to distract from your non-answer.



> Weird how RINO has been used for about 20 years and 'liberal' and moderates have basically been forced out.



Liberals are a solid part of the GOP base. Liberals like me tend to share common cause with Republicans.

As you totalitarian leftists wage your war on civil liberty and free markets, common ground between liberals and the Republicans is found to be vast.



> Yeah, I know, the only guys you can run for the national office of Prez isn't the TP flavor, BECAUSE the rest of US don't like your extreme bullshit! Weird how Failin Palin and Ryan 'appealed' to the low informed TP



You of the authoritarian party offer freebies and goodies to the masses, promising to take from others and give to those who want. The issue you face is that you really don't deliver.

Oh sure, food stamps and aid have exploded under leftist rule - we are a dependency society. But for those who seek independence and self-reliance, life under the radical left of Obamunism has been a disaster. The middle has declined under Obama at an alarming rate. Downward mobility is the gift of the Khmer Rouge democrats to the American people. 

As trillions of dollars are handed to the top 1% to prop the DOW up to 17K, the middle is treated to unemployment and food stamps, while jobs and entire industries vanish.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> LOL, NATIONAL ECONOMY versus ignoring 40+ PDB's and CIA warnings of an 'imminent attack'?



Exact words; "Osama bin Laden determined to attack." That's it, nothing more.

To you of the Khmer Rouge, that was all the information Bush needed...


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> 
> sites.google.com/site/salk1920s/economics/laissez-faire



speaking of Hoover,as I have said a million times on this thread,thats when america stopped being america and became a facist dictatership again was when Hoover became president.we actually started on that path in 1913 thanks to wilson but Harding and Coolidge-our last great republican president that served the people instead of the bankers,they started to reverse the corruption that wilson got started,then Hoover got in and since then,we have stayed on the course of being a facist dictarship and banana republican ever since.the one lone president who did not go down that path that Hoover and every president since him went down,paid the price for it on nov 22nd 1963.our last REAL president we had that served the people instead of the bankers.

Bohemian Club 

The August 2, 1982 edition of Newsweek magazine reported: "... the world's most prestigious summer camp - the Bohemian Grove - is now in session 75 miles north of San Francisco. The fiercely guarded, 2,700-acre retreat is the country extension of San Francisco's all-male ultra-exclusive Bohemian Club to which every Republican President since Herbert Hoover has belonged. 

With its high-powered clientele, coveted privacy and cabalistic rituals, the Bohemian 

I lso noticed to know surprise-never fails,the reaganut worshippers ignored my previous link of reagan and his friend and fellow mass murderer DICK Nixon,photographed at bohemiam grove -the place where mock sacrifices of children go on,ignoring the picture there of nixon and reagan there from 1967.
they always retreat always ignoring that link acting like i never posted it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

This message is hidden because Uncensored2008 is on your ignore list.  


 ignore listUncensored2008  


two farts in a row from the disinfo government troll.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Progressives "Think"
> 
> The Coolidge 20's: Couldn't find an unemployed person. Bad! BAD! BAD!
> 
> The FDR Depression: 20% average unemployment over his first 2 terms. The Messiah has returned to save Capitalism!!
> 
> Pretty fucked in the head, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE conservative myth making, I'm shocked
> 
> You realize the 1920's mirrored Dubya's period right? Cheap and easy credit without regard top regulators or the bubble economy they created?
> 
> When the lack of demand (because of low wages) that had been created because of the war interrupted the Harding/Coolidge bubble,  ARTIFICIALLY built on the lack of demand of the war period, then the Banksters saw the war bond money and decided to allow the average person to invest by leverage, it popped
> 
> FDR? Steady increase every year, until he listened to the GO/conservative deficit hawks in 1937 and cut spending 10% and took US back into the GOP great depression!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The perfect Liberal Total Reality Inverse.
> 
> There was no Bubble economy in the 1920's we had at least two transformative technologies: Electricity and mass production driving the economy.
> 
> Your "bankster" stuff is just ignorant Marxist spewage
> 
> The GOP had NOTHING to do with the FDR Depression, they were bystanders. FDR owns it all
Click to expand...


Housing Bubble

The famous stock market bubble of 19251929 has been closely analyzed. *Less well known, and far less well documented, is the nationwide real estate bubble that began around 1921 and deflated around 1926*. In the midst of our current subprime mortgage collapse, economists and historians interested in the role of real estate markets in past financial crises are reexamining the relationship of the first asset-price bubble of the 1920s with the later stock market bubble and the Great Depression that followed. 

Bubbles, Panics & Crashes ? Historical Collections ? Harvard Business School




The housing bubble during the Great Depression was caused by overvaluation of properties and easy access to credit.

Sound familiar?

Greater credit availability makes the economy more sensitive to any shocks, according to a recent study by Raghuram Rajan at the University of Chicago and Rodney Ramcharan of the Federal Reserve Board.

*In the 1920's, anyone could get a big loan for a farm or a house*. But when the markets tanked and people lost their jobs they found they couldn't sell their property for the same value they bought it.



Here's what the study had to say about the effects of easy lending on the economy:

*Our evidence suggests that the rise in asset prices and the build-up in associated leverage was so high that bank failures (resulting from farm loan losses) were significantly more in areas with greater ex ante credit availability*. *Moreover, the areas that had greater credit availability during the commodity price boom had depressed land prices for a number of subsequent decades * probably because farm loan losses resulted in the failure of banks that lent to farmers, and depressed agricultural credit in subsequent decades.

Great Depression Real Estate Bubble - Business Insider


`
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Total debt to GDP levels in the U.S. reached a high of just under 300% by the time of the Depression. This level of debt was not exceeded again until near the end of the 20th century

Causes of the Great Depression

1. Stock Market Crash of 1929

Many believe erroneously that the stock market crash that occurred on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929 is one and the same with the Great Depression. In fact, it was one of the major causes that led to the Great Depression.


2. Bank Failures

Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. CAN YOU SAY EASY CREDIT AND  DEBT 


First, American firms earned record profits during the 1920s and reinvested much of these funds into expansion. *By 1929, companies had expanded to the bubble point. *Workers could no longer continue to fuel further expansion, so a slowdown was inevitable. *While corporate profits, skyrocketed, wages increased incrementally, which widened the distribution of wealth.*

*The richest one percent of Americans owned over a third of all American assets. Such wealth concentrated in the hands of a few limits economic growth*. The wealthy tended to save money that might have been put back into the economy if it were spread among the middle and lower classes. Middle class Americans had already stretched their debt capacities by purchasing automobiles and household appliances on installment plans.


There were fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economic system.* Banks operated without guarantees to their customers, creating a climate of panic when times got tough. Few regulations were placed on banks and they lent money to those who speculated recklessly in stocks.* Agricultural prices had already been low during the 1920s, leaving farmers unable to spark any sort of recovery. 


The Great Depression [ushistory.org]


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, NATIONAL ECONOMY versus ignoring 40+ PDB's and CIA warnings of an 'imminent attack'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exact words; "Osama bin Laden determined to attack." That's it, nothing more.
> 
> To you of the Khmer Rouge, that was all the information Bush needed...
Click to expand...




*Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack*




*President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.*

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a ''closely held intelligence report'' that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda


*"Exact words; "Osama bin Laden determined to attack." That's it, nothing more."*

WEIRD, THIS IS ABOUT 13 PARAGRAPHS LONG, AND NOT THE FULL PDB BUSH SAW



*Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US*


CNN.com - Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US - Apr 10, 2004



*Two months before the hijackings, FBI agents in Phoenix reported their suspicions about Arab students at a Phoenix flight school, and directly referred to the possibility of a connection to bin Laden. *


While the famous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." briefing was released "in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack," Eichenwald reports, and was publicly marginalized by the White House as "an assessment of Al Qaedas history, not a warning of the impending attack," read along with other similar, even more dire, if still-classified warnings, that claim by the Bush White House was absurd.

Eichenwald, who says he has "read excerpts from many" of the CIA briefs prepared for Bush which preceded the 8/6/01 warning, details a number of them, and reports that the Bush Administration, and *"the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon", were determined to ignore them. They even went so far, he says, as to believe that "the C.I.A. had been fooled."*

"According to this theory," Eichenwald writes, "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."

*"In response," to the months of ignored reports --- including a May 1 briefing warning that "a group presently in the United States" was planning an attack and that, as a June 22 brief noted, an attack by al-Qaeda could be "imminent" --- on June 29, "the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real."*



*"The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden," that briefing read. It warned that Bin Laden operatives were planning attacks very soon that would have "dramatic consequences" and major casualties.*

Another brief from *July 1*, according to Eichenwald, warns that the operation was delayed, but *"will occur soon." *On July 9, according to "intelligence I reviewed", says Eichenwald, an extremist linked to al-Qaeda *"told his followers that there would soon be very big news." **But the report, even after all of the others, still failed launch the White House into action. There were more. All, it seems, were downplayed, marginalized or all but ignored*

9/11 Stunner: Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack | The BRAD BLOG


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the GOP is they have the TP extremists like you less than 20% with undue influence over them, not relative to their size, but money backing by those 'populist' Kochs, Heritage, AEI, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with ThinkProgress monkeys is that you can't answer a direct question.
> 
> Any question will result in more off-topic talking points. You are nothing but a shit flinging feral baboon, when anyone questions the bullshit you post, you simply hurl and unrelated pile of shit to distract from your non-answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how RINO has been used for about 20 years and 'liberal' and moderates have basically been forced out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals are a solid part of the GOP base. Liberals like me tend to share common cause with Republicans.
> 
> As you totalitarian leftists wage your war on civil liberty and free markets, common ground between liberals and the Republicans is found to be vast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know, the only guys you can run for the national office of Prez isn't the TP flavor, BECAUSE the rest of US don't like your extreme bullshit! Weird how Failin Palin and Ryan 'appealed' to the low informed TP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You of the authoritarian party offer freebies and goodies to the masses, promising to take from others and give to those who want. The issue you face is that you really don't deliver.
> 
> Oh sure, food stamps and aid have exploded under leftist rule - we are a dependency society. But for those who seek independence and self-reliance, life under the radical left of Obamunism has been a disaster. The middle has declined under Obama at an alarming rate. Downward mobility is the gift of the Khmer Rouge democrats to the American people.
> 
> As trillions of dollars are handed to the top 1% to prop the DOW up to 17K, the middle is treated to unemployment and food stamps, while jobs and entire industries vanish.
Click to expand...




You're 'liberal'? lol

Sorry Bubba, libertarians are FARRR right wingers on economics and just to ignorant of REAL world facts to be taken seriously. Galting? lol


*Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know*

Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know




*Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them* in last year&#8217;s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. *Kentucky&#8217;s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried. *
\

Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg





*Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala *A theory of a divided nation 



In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren&#8217;t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. *The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist&#8217;s paradise.*

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala | New Republic


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack



Utter bullshit, you mindless hack.

Bush got

"Bin Laden determined to strike in US"

Nothing actionable - just the fact that Al Qaeda wanted to attack.

You are truly a fucktard - it lessens your effectivity as a demagogue.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think repeating the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT STORY we heard from Jake, Bucs90 and JosefBStalin is going to impress us this time??
> 
> LOL
> 
> Hope you getting paid well for this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it you are part of the type that doesn't let facts or data get in your way. TP/GOP was born at the time AFTER Dubya went hog wild on the debt/deficits and spending WHILE gutting revenues, US Corp taxes hit their lowest point in 40 years, US avg tax burden sunk to 1950's lows, but the black guy won so TP came out for 'good fiscal policies' lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Loathe and Despise W. I've said that if Dante were still assigning seats to the Inferno W would be down with Brutus, Cassius and Judas as one of history's biggest traitors.
> 
> He had a chance to be the next Coolidge, the first time in 70 years we had an opportunity to try freedom but instead he fucked us
Click to expand...


Nope, Dubya was pretty much Coolidge for the modern economy, doubled household debt like Coolidge and 'believe in' markets self regulation crap that allowed the Dubya recession!


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit, you mindless hack.
> 
> Bush got
> 
> "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
> 
> Nothing actionable - just the fact that Al Qaeda wanted to attack.
> 
> You are truly a fucktard - it lessens your effectivity as a demagogue.
Click to expand...


Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking



We all know about the August 5, 2001
Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!



These are a few of the titles of the PDB's that are from page 152 of the new book "The Commission".

April 20, 2001.  Bin Laden plans multiple terrorist operations.

May 3, 2001.  Bin Laden's public profile may presage attacks.

May 23, 2001.  Terrorist group said cooperating on US Hostage plot.

May 26, 2001.  Bin Laden's networks' plan advancing.

June 23, 2001.  bin Laden attacks may be imminent.

June 25, 2001.  Bin Laden & associates making near-term threats.

June 30, 2001.  bin Laden planning high-profile attacks.

July 2, 2001.  Planning for bin Laden attacks continue.

These 8 warnings and 32 other warnings were all ignored.

The infamous August 6, 2001 PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. was 12 paragraphs long.  The final two paragraphs name New York City as a likely target!

*On September 4, 2001 Richard Clarke, terrorism czar, wrote an infamous memo to Dr. Condoleezza Rice.  It asked when are we going to get serious about the al Qaeda threat.  Decision makers need to imagine a future day when hundreds of Americans lying dead in several countries including the United States.  That future day may happen anytime.  It happened seven days later.*


VP Rice? Bush/Rice ignored 40 Bin Laden attack warnings.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> You're 'liberal'? lol



Yes, I am a liberal. YOU are not - you are a leftist.



> Sorry Bubba, libertarians are FARRR right wingers on economics and just to ignorant of REAL world facts to be taken seriously. Galting? lol



You are simply an ignorant baboon. 

What, they didn't have talking points on the hate site to tell us all how "liberal" you are? YOU and your shameful party promote authoritarianism. You seek a centralized economy managed by rulers in Washington. You promote speech codes that dictate what people may say and think. You seek to curtail and crush belief systems (except Islam, which you are allied with), as your recent failed attempt to crush the 1st Amendment demonstrates.

Oh, and do you think ANYONE actually takes you seriously? Only some pathetic 9/11 conspiracy whackjob is willing to be associated with you. I don't know which permabanned lefty troll you were before, but obviously your fellow leftists do, and they treat you like the plague.



> *Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know*



Oh boy - completely unrelated talking points from the hate sites. 

As I said, you are unable to communicate. You have no brain, you can only cut and paste stupid shit from the hate sites.

You are a shit flinging feral baboon, nothing more.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're 'liberal'? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a liberal. YOU are not - you are a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bubba, libertarians are FARRR right wingers on economics and just to ignorant of REAL world facts to be taken seriously. Galting? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply an ignorant baboon.
> 
> What, they didn't have talking points on the hate site to tell us all how "liberal" you are? YOU and your shameful party promote authoritarianism. You seek a centralized economy managed by rulers in Washington. You promote speech codes that dictate what people may say and think. You seek to curtail and crush belief systems (except Islam, which you are allied with), as your recent failed attempt to crush the 1st Amendment demonstrates.
> 
> Oh, and do you think ANYONE actually takes you seriously? Only some pathetic 9/11 conspiracy whackjob is willing to be associated with you. I don't know which permabanned lefty troll you were before, but obviously your fellow leftists do, and they treat you like the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy - completely unrelated talking points from the hate sites.
> 
> As I said, you are unable to communicate. You have no brain, you can only cut and paste stupid shit from the hate sites.
> 
> You are a shit flinging feral baboon, nothing more.
Click to expand...


Stop projecting Bubba, it makes you looks even more ignorant than you probably are!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking



Irony, thy name is leftard...




> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!



Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.

The problem you have is there is nothing there.

Bin Laden determined to attack.

What do YOU say Bush should have done?

No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?

You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're 'liberal'? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a liberal. YOU are not - you are a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply an ignorant baboon.
> 
> What, they didn't have talking points on the hate site to tell us all how "liberal" you are? YOU and your shameful party promote authoritarianism. You seek a centralized economy managed by rulers in Washington. You promote speech codes that dictate what people may say and think. You seek to curtail and crush belief systems (except Islam, which you are allied with), as your recent failed attempt to crush the 1st Amendment demonstrates.
> 
> Oh, and do you think ANYONE actually takes you seriously? Only some pathetic 9/11 conspiracy whackjob is willing to be associated with you. I don't know which permabanned lefty troll you were before, but obviously your fellow leftists do, and they treat you like the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy - completely unrelated talking points from the hate sites.
> 
> As I said, you are unable to communicate. You have no brain, you can only cut and paste stupid shit from the hate sites.
> 
> You are a shit flinging feral baboon, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting Bubba, it makes you looks even more ignorant than you probably are!
Click to expand...


Come on, tell us why I am wrong? Tell us why you and your shameful party are "liberal," and the defenders of liberty are not?

What's the matter, is flinging shit from the hate sites the *ONLY* thing you are capable of?



We all know it is. 

Hatred and stupidity are the twin pillars of leftism, as you well prove.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Coolidge had something Reagan never did: Republican majorities in House and Senate.

HW Bush's Disinformation Agent seems to ignore that


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
Click to expand...


THERE HAD BEEN A HIJACK ALERT AND AIRLINES WERE ON A HIGH ALERT. Bush shut down the alert. He could have and should have put it back in effect when the top anti terror official in the government told him an attack was imminent.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> THERE HAD BEEN A HIJACK ALERT AND AIRLINES WERE ON A HIGH ALERT.



Based on what? 

"Bin Laden determined to attack?"

Did Clinton have the airlines on high alert? The attack on the WTC under Clinton was using a truck bomb - so a repeat attack by the same group would be assumed to use the same means. After all, it was Al Qaeda who trained Terry Nickles to make the truck bomb used for OKC, with great effect. To Al Qaeda crafted successes, what would have made Bush think that a Kamakazi attack was in the works?

Just because you're a partisan hack and hate him?  Seriously, are you fools really this fucking retarded?



> Bush shut down the alert.



Shut down what alert? There was no alert. The fact that you have to lie, demonstrates just how stupid the shit you post is.



> He could have and should have put it back in effect when the top anti terror official in the government told him an attack was imminent.



You can't put "back in effect" what was never in effect. And read the brief, there is nothing there. Nothing about airlines, nothing about targets, just ethereal reference to the fact that Muslims hate us.


----------



## Uncensored2008

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?



No, Clinton said that "Bin Laden determined to attack," so Bush knew that on September 11, at 8:46 a 757 would crash into the WTC, because "Bin Laden determined to attack." I mean, it's right there, exactly what would happen; any fool knows that "Bin Laden determined to attack" means that 5 airliners would be hijacked on 9/11 - how could he miss it?

So Bush should have "put back" the alert that never exist under Clinton - the one that stopped the Blind Sheik and McVeigh from terrorist attacks....


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, NATIONAL ECONOMY versus ignoring 40+ PDB's and CIA warnings of an 'imminent attack'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exact words; "Osama bin Laden determined to attack." That's it, nothing more.
> 
> To you of the Khmer Rouge, that was all the information Bush needed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.*
> 
> The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a ''closely held intelligence report'' that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda
> 
> 
> *"Exact words; "Osama bin Laden determined to attack." That's it, nothing more."*
> 
> WEIRD, THIS IS ABOUT 13 PARAGRAPHS LONG, AND NOT THE FULL PDB BUSH SAW
> 
> 
> 
> *Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US*
> 
> 
> CNN.com - Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US - Apr 10, 2004
> 
> 
> 
> *Two months before the hijackings, FBI agents in Phoenix reported their suspicions about Arab students at a Phoenix flight school, and directly referred to the possibility of a connection to bin Laden. *
> 
> 
> While the famous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." briefing was released "in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack," Eichenwald reports, and was publicly marginalized by the White House as "an assessment of Al Qaedas history, not a warning of the impending attack," read along with other similar, even more dire, if still-classified warnings, that claim by the Bush White House was absurd.
> 
> Eichenwald, who says he has "read excerpts from many" of the CIA briefs prepared for Bush which preceded the 8/6/01 warning, details a number of them, and reports that the Bush Administration, and *"the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon", were determined to ignore them. They even went so far, he says, as to believe that "the C.I.A. had been fooled."*
> 
> "According to this theory," Eichenwald writes, "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."
> 
> *"In response," to the months of ignored reports --- including a May 1 briefing warning that "a group presently in the United States" was planning an attack and that, as a June 22 brief noted, an attack by al-Qaeda could be "imminent" --- on June 29, "the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real."*
> 
> 
> 
> *"The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden," that briefing read. It warned that Bin Laden operatives were planning attacks very soon that would have "dramatic consequences" and major casualties.*
> 
> Another brief from *July 1*, according to Eichenwald, warns that the operation was delayed, but *"will occur soon." *On July 9, according to "intelligence I reviewed", says Eichenwald, an extremist linked to al-Qaeda *"told his followers that there would soon be very big news." **But the report, even after all of the others, still failed launch the White House into action. There were more. All, it seems, were downplayed, marginalized or all but ignored*
> 
> 9/11 Stunner: Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack | The BRAD BLOG
Click to expand...


CENSOREDS boss sure pays him a lot of money for these constant ass beatings he gets here everyday. no way in hell would he come here for free for them.uh uh.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it you are part of the type that doesn't let facts or data get in your way. TP/GOP was born at the time AFTER Dubya went hog wild on the debt/deficits and spending WHILE gutting revenues, US Corp taxes hit their lowest point in 40 years, US avg tax burden sunk to 1950's lows, but the black guy won so TP came out for 'good fiscal policies' lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Loathe and Despise W. I've said that if Dante were still assigning seats to the Inferno W would be down with Brutus, Cassius and Judas as one of history's biggest traitors.
> 
> He had a chance to be the next Coolidge, the first time in 70 years we had an opportunity to try freedom but instead he fucked us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Dubya was pretty much Coolidge for the modern economy, doubled household debt like Coolidge and 'believe in' markets self regulation crap that allowed the Dubya recession!
Click to expand...


Dont get crusader retard confused with disinfo agent CENSORED.Retard does hate the Bushs. mostly because of the fact that Bush sr was involved heavily in the assassiantion attempt on his distant cousin and lover Reagan same way LBJ was with JFK so ever since,he has hated the Bushs.thats why he hates Obama as well since he is buddies with the Bushs.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush Received, Ignored Multiple Warnings of 'Imminent', 'Dramatic' Attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit, you mindless hack.
> 
> Bush got
> 
> "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"
> 
> Nothing actionable - just the fact that Al Qaeda wanted to attack.
> 
> You are truly a fucktard - it lessens your effectivity as a demagogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking
> 
> 
> 
> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!
> 
> 
> 
> These are a few of the titles of the PDB's that are from page 152 of the new book "The Commission".
> 
> April 20, 2001.  Bin Laden plans multiple terrorist operations.
> 
> May 3, 2001.  Bin Laden's public profile may presage attacks.
> 
> May 23, 2001.  Terrorist group said cooperating on US Hostage plot.
> 
> May 26, 2001.  Bin Laden's networks' plan advancing.
> 
> June 23, 2001.  bin Laden attacks may be imminent.
> 
> June 25, 2001.  Bin Laden & associates making near-term threats.
> 
> June 30, 2001.  bin Laden planning high-profile attacks.
> 
> July 2, 2001.  Planning for bin Laden attacks continue.
> 
> These 8 warnings and 32 other warnings were all ignored.
> 
> The infamous August 6, 2001 PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. was 12 paragraphs long.  The final two paragraphs name New York City as a likely target!
> 
> *On September 4, 2001 Richard Clarke, terrorism czar, wrote an infamous memo to Dr. Condoleezza Rice.  It asked when are we going to get serious about the al Qaeda threat.  Decision makers need to imagine a future day when hundreds of Americans lying dead in several countries including the United States.  That future day may happen anytime.  It happened seven days later.*
> 
> 
> VP Rice? Bush/Rice ignored 40 Bin Laden attack warnings.
Click to expand...


thats why disinfo agent troll CENSOREDS boss pays him the big bucks for his ass beatings he gets from you here.as always you took him to school and he can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is. dont forget that our CIA funded al-queda as well,I have  handed his ass to him on a platter on that too many times to remember in the past as well.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're 'liberal'? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a liberal. YOU are not - you are a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply an ignorant baboon.
> 
> What, they didn't have talking points on the hate site to tell us all how "liberal" you are? YOU and your shameful party promote authoritarianism. You seek a centralized economy managed by rulers in Washington. You promote speech codes that dictate what people may say and think. You seek to curtail and crush belief systems (except Islam, which you are allied with), as your recent failed attempt to crush the 1st Amendment demonstrates.
> 
> Oh, and do you think ANYONE actually takes you seriously? Only some pathetic 9/11 conspiracy whackjob is willing to be associated with you. I don't know which permabanned lefty troll you were before, but obviously your fellow leftists do, and they treat you like the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy - completely unrelated talking points from the hate sites.
> 
> As I said, you are unable to communicate. You have no brain, you can only cut and paste stupid shit from the hate sites.
> 
> You are a shit flinging feral baboon, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting Bubba, it makes you looks even more ignorant than you probably are!
Click to expand...


yeah he needs to stop making himself look like the stupid shit he is protecting Bubba just liek crusader retard needs to stop proving what a stupdi shit he is ignoring facts abotu hsi cousin reagan making up lies to protect his him.crusader retards real last name in real life is OBVIOUSLY reagan.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THERE HAD BEEN A HIJACK ALERT AND AIRLINES WERE ON A HIGH ALERT. Bush shut down the alert. He could have and should have put it back in effect when the top anti terror official in the government told him an attack was imminent.
Click to expand...


You're the latest to take disinfo agent troll censored to school on that.His boss is obviously worried the way they keep sending him here to shit all over the floor and try to derail this thread.  camp,notice how as always,the subject is turning away from reagans corruption to the corruption of other presidents? 

like clockwork,everytime the reaganuts get frustrated with pesky facts they cant refute,they evade them and change the subject. i wish there was some job out there where they offered you money to predict if the reaganuts would change the subject to other presidents out there.I would make a fortune on that the way they are so simple and easy to predict.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE HAD BEEN A HIJACK ALERT AND AIRLINES WERE ON A HIGH ALERT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> "Bin Laden determined to attack?"
> 
> Did Clinton have the airlines on high alert? The attack on the WTC under Clinton was using a truck bomb - so a repeat attack by the same group would be assumed to use the same means. After all, it was Al Qaeda who trained Terry Nickles to make the truck bomb used for OKC, with great effect. To Al Qaeda crafted successes, what would have made Bush think that a Kamakazi attack was in the works?
> 
> Just because you're a partisan hack and hate him?  Seriously, are you fools really this fucking retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush shut down the alert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut down what alert? There was no alert. The fact that you have to lie, demonstrates just how stupid the shit you post is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have and should have put it back in effect when the top anti terror official in the government told him an attack was imminent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't put "back in effect" what was never in effect. And read the brief, there is nothing there. Nothing about airlines, nothing about targets, just ethereal reference to the fact that Muslims hate us.
Click to expand...


So you demand evidence of what is basic knowledge to the whole world, but insist that links be restricted and no cut and paste be allowed. Do you actually expect to be treated seriously? The FAA, FBI and State Department issued a hijack alert on 18 July and the FAA issued another one on 31 July. In addition over 52 FAA security briefings leading up to 9/11 mentioned Bin Laden and al Qaeda by name as hijack threats. The warnings were overwhelming.  Everyone who should have known the attack was coming knew the attack was coming.
The question that needs to be answered is why didn't the Bush administration try to stop the attack.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

their handlers are getting worried.hee hee


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Loathe and Despise W. I've said that if Dante were still assigning seats to the Inferno W would be down with Brutus, Cassius and Judas as one of history's biggest traitors.
> 
> He had a chance to be the next Coolidge, the first time in 70 years we had an opportunity to try freedom but instead he fucked us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Dubya was pretty much Coolidge for the modern economy, doubled household debt like Coolidge and 'believe in' markets self regulation crap that allowed the Dubya recession!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont get crusader retard confused with disinfo agent CENSORED.Retard does hate the Bushs. mostly because of the fact that Bush sr was involved heavily in the assassiantion attempt on his distant cousin and lover Reagan same way LBJ was with JFK so ever since,he has hated the Bushs.thats why he hates Obama as well since he is buddies with the Bushs.
Click to expand...


You get paid by the post, right?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE HAD BEEN A HIJACK ALERT AND AIRLINES WERE ON A HIGH ALERT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> "Bin Laden determined to attack?"
> 
> Did Clinton have the airlines on high alert? The attack on the WTC under Clinton was using a truck bomb - so a repeat attack by the same group would be assumed to use the same means. After all, it was Al Qaeda who trained Terry Nickles to make the truck bomb used for OKC, with great effect. To Al Qaeda crafted successes, what would have made Bush think that a Kamakazi attack was in the works?
> 
> Just because you're a partisan hack and hate him?  Seriously, are you fools really this fucking retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> Shut down what alert? There was no alert. The fact that you have to lie, demonstrates just how stupid the shit you post is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have and should have put it back in effect when the top anti terror official in the government told him an attack was imminent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't put "back in effect" what was never in effect. And read the brief, there is nothing there. Nothing about airlines, nothing about targets, just ethereal reference to the fact that Muslims hate us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you demand evidence of what is basic knowledge to the whole world, but insist that links be restricted and no cut and paste be allowed. Do you actually expect to be treated seriously? The FAA, FBI and State Department issued a hijack alert on 18 July and the FAA issued another one on 31 July. In addition over 52 FAA security briefings leading up to 9/11 mentioned Bin Laden and al Qaeda by name as hijack threats. The warnings were overwhelming.  Everyone who should have known the attack was coming knew the attack was coming.
> The question that needs to be answered is why didn't the Bush administration try to stop the attack.
Click to expand...


as always,CENSORED gets his ass handed to him on a platter. he is going to have to check with his handlers on what kind of b.s to post next in his post.you just know that to be true.lol


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
Click to expand...


I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't  have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a liberal. YOU are not - you are a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> You are simply an ignorant baboon.
> 
> What, they didn't have talking points on the hate site to tell us all how "liberal" you are? YOU and your shameful party promote authoritarianism. You seek a centralized economy managed by rulers in Washington. You promote speech codes that dictate what people may say and think. You seek to curtail and crush belief systems (except Islam, which you are allied with), as your recent failed attempt to crush the 1st Amendment demonstrates.
> 
> Oh, and do you think ANYONE actually takes you seriously? Only some pathetic 9/11 conspiracy whackjob is willing to be associated with you. I don't know which permabanned lefty troll you were before, but obviously your fellow leftists do, and they treat you like the plague.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy - completely unrelated talking points from the hate sites.
> 
> As I said, you are unable to communicate. You have no brain, you can only cut and paste stupid shit from the hate sites.
> 
> You are a shit flinging feral baboon, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop projecting Bubba, it makes you looks even more ignorant than you probably are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, tell us why I am wrong? Tell us why you and your shameful party are "liberal," and the defenders of liberty are not?
> 
> What's the matter, is flinging shit from the hate sites the *ONLY* thing you are capable of?
> 
> 
> 
> We all know it is.
> 
> Hatred and stupidity are the twin pillars of leftism, as you well prove.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Coolidge had something Reagan never did: Republican majorities in House and Senate.
> 
> HW Bush's Disinformation Agent seems to ignore that



That's why Reagan only hurt the S&L sector where Texas ate about half the losses. Dubya had a GOP Congress first 6 years, he emulated Harding/Coolidge's garbage, and created the worst thing since the first GOP great depression!

*HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR THE GOP TO  TAKE CONGRESS AFTER CAUSING THE FIRST GOP DEPRESSION?*


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't
> have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
Click to expand...



What 40 warnings? Some vague warnings about possible terrorist attacks? Please.. And there was no 8 months. it took the Bush administration extra months to get his administration together because of the FL hanging chad debacle he got a late start. Clinton refused to take out Bin laden lets get that straight.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?



Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't
> have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What 40 warnings? Some vague warnings about possible terrorist attacks? Please.. And there was no 8 months. it took the Bush administration extra months to get his administration together because of the FL hanging chad debacle he got a late start. Clinton refused to take out Bin laden lets get that straight.
Click to expand...




Got it, You'll stick with the usual right wing crap, false premises, distortions and LIES

Extra months? Weird, Gore conceded a month after the election, you saying Dubya was to stupid to get his team together in a month?' AND the attack was EIGHT  months after being sworn in!

WHAT WAS HE WANTED FOR WHEN CLINTON WAS SUPPOSED TO 'TAKE HIM OUT'?


BEFORE THIS:


Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized


On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden's training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.

In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état



in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one in which bin Laden was riding


In 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as "correctly focused on bin Laden", while Robert Oakley criticized their "obsession with Osama"


WHAT DID DUBYA DO?


*FLASHBACK: Bush On Bin Laden: I Really Just Dont Spend That Much Time On Him*


George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: *Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. *W


Bush listened to the briefing, then told the CIA briefer:* All right. Youve covered your ass, now. *


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't
> have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What 40 warnings? Some vague warnings about possible terrorist attacks? Please.. And there was no 8 months. it took the Bush administration extra months to get his administration together because of the FL hanging chad debacle he got a late start. Clinton refused to take out Bin laden lets get that straight.
Click to expand...




 Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

Eichenwald, who says he has "read excerpts from many" of the CIA briefs prepared for Bush which preceded the 8/6/01 warning, details a number of them, and reports that the *Bush Administration, and "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon", were determined to ignore them. They even went so far, he says, as to believe that "the C.I.A. had been fooled."*

*"According to this theory," Eichenwald writes, "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."*

"In response," to the months of ignored reports --- including a May 1 briefing warning that "a group presently in the United States" was planning an attack and that, as a June 22 brief noted, an attack by al-Qaeda could be "imminent" --- *on June 29, "the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real."*



*"The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden," that briefing read. It warned that Bin Laden operatives were planning attacks very soon that would have "dramatic consequences" and major casualties.*

*Another brief from July 1,* according to Eichenwald, warns that the operation was delayed, but *"will occur soon." *On *July 9,* according to "intelligence I reviewed", says Eichenwald, an extremist linked to al-Qaeda "*told his followers that there would soon be very big news." **But the report, even after all of the others, still failed launch the White House into action. There were more. All, it seems, were downplayed, marginalized or all but ignored*



On *September 4, 2001 Richard Clarke, terrorism czar*, wrote an infamous memo to Dr. Condoleezza Rice. It asked *when are we going to get serious about the al Qaeda threat. Decision makers need to imagine a future day when hundreds of Americans lying dead in several countries including the United States. That future day may happen anytime. It happened seven days later.*


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Clinton said that "Bin Laden determined to attack," so Bush knew that on September 11, at 8:46 a 757 would crash into the WTC, because "Bin Laden determined to attack." I mean, it's right there, exactly what would happen; any fool knows that "Bin Laden determined to attack" means that 5 airliners would be hijacked on 9/11 - how could he miss it?
> 
> So Bush should have "put back" the alert that never exist under Clinton - the one that stopped the Blind Sheik and McVeigh from terrorist attacks....
Click to expand...




* Clinton Administration Counter Terrorism Initiative*

Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures

*Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton
Anti-Terrorism Bill, Thanks to Lott & Hatch*


10-16-01, Since all the republicans want to blame clinton for all the worlds problems these articles should open some eyes. I wonder why the mainstream media or O'Reilly or Rush or FOX news never mention these facts when they blame Clinton for everything ?

7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

*One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."*

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

*Hatch blasts 'phony' issues*

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

*Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."*

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.



April 16, 1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By Friday, the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress is expected to pass an anti- terrorism bill which addresses some, though not all, of the concerns the bombing raised over Americans' safety. 


.... The bill, which would cost $1 billion over four years, also calls for "tagging" plastic explosives to better trace them. The bill calls for a study on tagging methods for other explosives such as fertilizer and black powder. Critics say the study provision is a concession to groups opposed to restrictions on explosive materials.

*The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted.* U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. "What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number," he said. "All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number."

Still, Schumer said the bill is "better than nothing" and should get some Democratic votes. 

 The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal.* The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.*

Note: The senate was controlled by the republicans in 1996. Trent Lott was the majority leader. 

Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill


* "Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden ...I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush adminsitration." Two Star General Donald Kerrick *



*I will make a bargain with the Republicans.
If they will stop telling lies about Democrats,
we will stop telling the truth about them.
Adlai Stevenson*


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE HAD BEEN A HIJACK ALERT AND AIRLINES WERE ON A HIGH ALERT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> "Bin Laden determined to attack?"
> 
> Did Clinton have the airlines on high alert? The attack on the WTC under Clinton was using a truck bomb - so a repeat attack by the same group would be assumed to use the same means. After all, it was Al Qaeda who trained Terry Nickles to make the truck bomb used for OKC, with great effect. To Al Qaeda crafted successes, what would have made Bush think that a Kamakazi attack was in the works?
> 
> Just because you're a partisan hack and hate him?  Seriously, are you fools really this fucking retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush shut down the alert.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut down what alert? There was no alert. The fact that you have to lie, demonstrates just how stupid the shit you post is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have and should have put it back in effect when the top anti terror official in the government told him an attack was imminent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't put "back in effect" what was never in effect. And read the brief, there is nothing there. Nothing about airlines, nothing about targets, just ethereal reference to the fact that Muslims hate us.
Click to expand...


*"THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED"*

8.1 THE SUMMER OF THREAT

*As 2001 began, counterterrorism officials were receiving frequent but fragmentary reports about threats. Indeed, there appeared to be possible threats almost everywhere the United States had interests-including at home.*

To understand how the escalation in threat reporting was handled in the summer of 2001, it is useful to understand how threat information in general is collected and conveyed


*There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. The PDB is considered highly sensitive and is distributed to only a handful of high-level officials*



*The Drumbeat Begins*

*In the spring of 2001, the level of reporting on terrorist threats and planned attacks increased dramatically to its highest level since the millennium alert. *

*Over the next few weeks, the CIA repeatedly issued warnings-including calls from DCI Tenet to Clarke-that Abu Zubaydah was planning an operation in the near future. *



The interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) that Clarke chaired discussed the Abu Zubaydah reports on *April 19.The next day*, a briefing to top officials reported *"Bin Ladin planning multiple operations."* When the deputies discussed al Qaeda policy on April 30, they began with a briefing on the threat.


In May 2001..*"Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack" and "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing." *In early *May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York*. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on *May 15* regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. *The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives."* On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was *"UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."*




*High Probability of Near-Term "Spectacular" Attacks

Threat reports surged in June and July, reaching an even higher peak of urgency. 
*



*MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE HERE*

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States


*The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001.37 Redacted material is indicated by brackets.*

*Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US *



....*We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [-] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.*

*  Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.*

* The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. **CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.*



National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States


----------



## thanatos144

Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane? 

Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11


----------



## Dot Com

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?
Click to expand...


Frank57 needs a reminder. He drank the Raygun kool aid and refuses to take the remedy 

As to the OP- The Gipper was the worst President in my lifetime  [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't  have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
Click to expand...




He didn't get any warnings, you moron.

"There was . . . an awareness by the government, including the president, of Osama bin Laden and the threat he posed in the United States and around the world," Fleischer said. "That included long-standing speculation about hijacking in the traditional sense, but not involving suicide bombers using airplanes as missiles."

A CIA spokesman said the agency routinely passed on intelligence citing the possibility that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack an airliner as part of a terrorist action against the United States. But a suicide attack involving an aircraft was never envisioned, the spokesman said."
Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)

Pretty specific warning, huh?


*And...do you know who asked for intelligence briefings?*

"The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was *requested by Bush, *who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States."
CNN.com - White House releases*bin Laden memo - Apr 12, 2004


Seems like Bush was far more responsible than the oaf in the White House now.....the one who took a nap while Benghazi was under attack.




But....you're not totally useless...you can be used as a bad example.


 "...information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation officials and national security agencies. ... In a press briefing, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said *the threats were very general and did not mention a specific time, place or mode of terrorist attack."* http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...esident's_Daily_Briefing_Memo_(External_Links)


----------



## Dot Com

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE HAD BEEN A HIJACK ALERT AND AIRLINES WERE ON A HIGH ALERT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> "Bin Laden determined to attack?"
> 
> Did Clinton have the airlines on high alert? The attack on the WTC under Clinton was using a truck bomb - so a repeat attack by the same group would be assumed to use the same means. After all, it was Al Qaeda who trained Terry Nickles to make the truck bomb used for OKC, with great effect. To Al Qaeda crafted successes, what would have made Bush think that a Kamakazi attack was in the works?
> 
> Just because you're a partisan hack and hate him?  Seriously, are you fools really this fucking retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> Shut down what alert? There was no alert. The fact that you have to lie, demonstrates just how stupid the shit you post is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could have and should have put it back in effect when the top anti terror official in the government told him an attack was imminent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't put "back in effect" what was never in effect. And read the brief, there is nothing there. Nothing about airlines, nothing about targets, just ethereal reference to the fact that Muslims hate us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED"*
> 
> 8.1 THE SUMMER OF THREAT
> 
> *As 2001 began, counterterrorism officials were receiving frequent but fragmentary reports about threats. Indeed, there appeared to be possible threats almost everywhere the United States had interests-including at home.*
> 
> To understand how the escalation in threat reporting was handled in the summer of 2001, it is useful to understand how threat information in general is collected and conveyed
> 
> 
> *There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. The PDB is considered highly sensitive and is distributed to only a handful of high-level officials*
> 
> 
> 
> *The Drumbeat Begins*
> 
> *In the spring of 2001, the level of reporting on terrorist threats and planned attacks increased dramatically to its highest level since the millennium alert. *
> 
> *Over the next few weeks, the CIA repeatedly issued warnings-including calls from DCI Tenet to Clarke-that Abu Zubaydah was planning an operation in the near future. *
> 
> 
> 
> The interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) that Clarke chaired discussed the Abu Zubaydah reports on *April 19.The next day*, a briefing to top officials reported *"Bin Ladin planning multiple operations."* When the deputies discussed al Qaeda policy on April 30, they began with a briefing on the threat.
> 
> 
> In May 2001..*"Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack" and "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing." *In early *May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York*. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on *May 15* regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. *The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives."* On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was *"UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *High Probability of Near-Term "Spectacular" Attacks
> 
> Threat reports surged in June and July, reaching an even higher peak of urgency.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE HERE*
> 
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
> 
> 
> *The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001.37 Redacted material is indicated by brackets.*
> 
> *Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US *
> 
> 
> 
> ....*We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [-] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.*
> 
> *  Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.*
> 
> * The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. **CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.*
> 
> 
> 
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Click to expand...


True. Theres also this:

Ashcroft "Didn't Want To Hear Of Al Qaeda" In High Threat Summer Of 2001 | Crooks and Liars


> BEN-VENISTE: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
> 
> Mr. Pickard, on January 21st of this year you met with our staff. Is that correct?
> 
> PICKARD: That's correct.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: And according to our staff report, you told them that in June 2001, you met with Attorney General Ashcroft and he told you that you would be the acting FBI director.
> 
> PICKARD: That's correct.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: You had some seven or eight meetings with the attorney general?
> 
> PICKARD: Somewhere in that number. I have the exact number, but I don't know the total.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: And according to the statement that our staff took from you, you said that you would start each meeting discussing either counterterrorism or counterintelligence. At the same time the threat level was going up and was very high. Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these meetings. Is that correct?
> 
> PICKARD: I told him at least on two occasions.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff according to this statement that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore. Is that correct?
> 
> PICKARD: That is correct.
> 
> (h/t Mike)



Repubs  more interested in wars-for-profit (profit for the defense contractors that is) than protecting the homeland


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't  have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up



Warnings which said nothing. Every man on the street knew the information in the farcical "warnings" that you mindless monkeys chatter about. There was ZERO actionable intel. 

Look, you have no mind - you are a cut & paste monkey, without the shit from the hate sites, you are rendered mute.

Look at your idiotic babble, rather than explaining what in this brief could lead to action, you spew IRAQ as a mantra to ward off thought.  Iraq is irrelevant to the question of what Bush was supposed to do based on the supposed warnings. 

I don't blame Clinton for the first WTC attack. I don't blame Clinton for the Murrah building - because I'm not a fucktard, I'm not just reading idiocy from hate sites and serving the party by flinging shit.

You however, ARE a fucktard, a shit flinging monkey with nothing to contribute.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop projecting Bubba, it makes you looks even more ignorant than you probably are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, tell us why I am wrong? Tell us why you and your shameful party are "liberal," and the defenders of liberty are not?
> 
> What's the matter, is flinging shit from the hate sites the *ONLY* thing you are capable of?
> 
> 
> 
> We all know it is.
> 
> Hatred and stupidity are the twin pillars of leftism, as you well prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mindless shit from hate sites redacted
Click to expand...


And there we have it - you are incapable of thought. You can ONLY cut & paste from the hate sites.

Fucking moron.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't
> have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What 40 warnings? Some vague warnings about possible terrorist attacks? Please.. And there was no 8 months. it took the Bush administration extra months to get his administration together because of the FL hanging chad debacle he got a late start. Clinton refused to take out Bin laden lets get that straight.
Click to expand...


This one is a feral baboon. You cannot reason with it, for it has no functioning brain. It is only able to scoop up handfuls of shit from the hate sites, and fling them here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11



I don't think Dad2K3 understands anything other than that his handler gives him a banana if he sccoops up shit from the radical left hate sites, and flings it here.

The monkey HAS NO BRAIN, he cannot carry on a conversation, he can only cut & paste.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank57 needs a reminder. He drank the Raygun kool aid and refuses to take the remedy
> 
> As to the OP- The Gipper was the worst President in my lifetime  [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.

Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.


----------



## Uncensored2008

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.



BECAUSE Reagan defeated the USSR, the left will NEVER forgive him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BECAUSE Reagan defeated the USSR, the left will NEVER forgive him.
Click to expand...

He killed their home team. He beat them so badly the only play left for them was to takeover the Democrat Party


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11



*Got it, 40+ HIGH LEVEL warnings to Dubya from Jan 20th Sept 2001, and he held not ONE meeting on it, meant it was Clinton's fault *shaking head**


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BECAUSE Reagan defeated the USSR, the left will NEVER forgive him.
Click to expand...


Sure he did, must have been how they saw him cut and run from the terrorists after he funded them that got them worried


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank57 needs a reminder. He drank the Raygun kool aid and refuses to take the remedy
> 
> As to the OP- The Gipper was the worst President in my lifetime  [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
Click to expand...


Well, except most economists give credit to Carter's guy, Volker on the Nixon/Ford inflation thing


*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.*

Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Dad2K3 understands anything other than that his handler gives him a banana if he sccoops up shit from the radical left hate sites, and flings it here.
> 
> The monkey HAS NO BRAIN, he cannot carry on a conversation, he can only cut & paste.
Click to expand...


In right wing speak, that means I don't buy into right wingers 'reality' where false premises, distortions and lies are King and they have Faux and hate talk radio to feed their disinformation campaign...


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't
> have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What 40 warnings? Some vague warnings about possible terrorist attacks? Please.. And there was no 8 months. it took the Bush administration extra months to get his administration together because of the FL hanging chad debacle he got a late start. Clinton refused to take out Bin laden lets get that straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This one is a feral baboon. You cannot reason with it, for it has no functioning brain. It is only able to scoop up handfuls of shit from the hate sites, and fling them here.
Click to expand...


Stop projecting, people will see you as ignorant as your other TP/GOP members...


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't  have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warnings which said nothing. Every man on the street knew the information in the farcical "warnings" that you mindless monkeys chatter about. There was ZERO actionable intel.
> 
> Look, you have no mind - you are a cut & paste monkey, without the shit from the hate sites, you are rendered mute.
> 
> Look at your idiotic babble, rather than explaining what in this brief could lead to action, you spew IRAQ as a mantra to ward off thought.  Iraq is irrelevant to the question of what Bush was supposed to do based on the supposed warnings.
> 
> I don't blame Clinton for the first WTC attack. I don't blame Clinton for the Murrah building - because I'm not a fucktard, I'm not just reading idiocy from hate sites and serving the party by flinging shit.
> 
> You however, ARE a fucktard, a shit flinging monkey with nothing to contribute.
Click to expand...




*"There was ZERO actionable intel."*

Good thing, because after 40+ high level warnings, wouldn't had wanted Dubya to take time out of his fishing schedule to have ONE meeting on 40+ high level warnings  from his intell community! 


* Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: &#8220;Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.&#8221; W


Bush listened to the briefing, then told the CIA briefer: &#8220;All right. You&#8217;ve covered your ass, now.&#8221; *



September 4, 2001 *Richard Clarke, terrorism czar*, wrote an infamous memo to Dr. Condoleezza Rice. It asked &#8216;*when are we going to get serious about the al Qaeda threat. Decision makers need to imagine a future day when hundreds of Americans lying dead in several countries including the United States. That future day may happen anytime&#8217;. It happened seven days later.*


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BECAUSE Reagan defeated the USSR, the left will NEVER forgive him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he did, must have been how they saw him cut and run from the terrorists after he funded them that got them worried
Click to expand...


Gawddayum but you're stupid, even as shit flinging monkeys go.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> In right wing speak, that means I don't buy into right wingers 'reality' where false premises, distortions and lies are King and they have Faux and hate talk radio to feed their disinformation campaign...



No, it means you cannot carry on a conversation, you cannot think. Without cut & paste from the hate sites, you have nothing at all.

You truly are an idiot, no cerebral activity detected. You cannot formulate a thought, you can only ape what your masters at the hate sites tell you.


----------



## Dad2three

PoliticalChic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't  have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't get any warnings, you moron.
> 
> "There was . . . an awareness by the government, including the president, of Osama bin Laden and the threat he posed in the United States and around the world," Fleischer said. "That included long-standing speculation about hijacking in the traditional sense, but not involving suicide bombers using airplanes as missiles."
> 
> A CIA spokesman said the agency routinely passed on intelligence citing the possibility that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack an airliner as part of a terrorist action against the United States. But a suicide attack involving an aircraft was never envisioned, the spokesman said."
> Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)
> 
> Pretty specific warning, huh?
> 
> 
> *And...do you know who asked for intelligence briefings?*
> 
> "The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was *requested by Bush, *who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States."
> CNN.com - White House releases*bin Laden memo - Apr 12, 2004
> 
> 
> Seems like Bush was far more responsible than the oaf in the White House now.....the one who took a nap while Benghazi was under attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....you're not totally useless...you can be used as a bad example.
> 
> 
> "...information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation officials and national security agencies. ... In a press briefing, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said *the threats were very general and did not mention a specific time, place or mode of terrorist attack."* http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...esident's_Daily_Briefing_Memo_(External_Links)
Click to expand...


*Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US*


Bush listened to the briefing, then told the CIA briefer: All right. Youve covered your ass, now. 


Eichenwald, who says he has "read excerpts from many" of the CIA briefs prepared for Bush which preceded the 8/6/01 warning, details a number of them, and reports that the Bush Administration, and "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon", were determined to ignore them. They even went so far, he says, as to believe that "the C.I.A. had been fooled."

*"According to this theory," Eichenwald writes, "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."*

"In response," to the months of ignored reports --- including a May 1 briefing warning that "a group presently in the United States" was planning an attack and that, as a June 22 brief noted, an attack by al-Qaeda could be "imminent" --- on June 29, "the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real."



*"The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden," that briefing read. It warned that Bin Laden operatives were planning attacks very soon that would have "dramatic consequences" and major casualties.*

Another brief from *July 1*, according to Eichenwald, warns that the operation was delayed, but *"will occur soon." *On *July 9*, according to "intelligence I reviewed", says Eichenwald, an extremist linked to al-Qaeda *"told his followers that there would soon be very big news."* But the report, even after all of the others, still failed launch the White House into action. *There were more. All, it seems, were downplayed, marginalized or all but ignored*



*On September 4, 2001 Richard Clarke, terrorism czar, wrote an infamous memo to Dr. Condoleezza Rice. It asked when are we going to get serious about the al Qaeda threat. Decision makers need to imagine a future day when hundreds of Americans lying dead in several countries including the United States. That future day may happen anytime. It happened seven days later.*


----------



## Zmrzlina

Meathead said:


> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!



Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> *"There was ZERO actionable intel."*
> 
> Good thing, because after 40+ high level warnings, wouldn't had wanted Dubya to take time out of his fishing schedule to have ONE meeting on 40+ high level warnings  from his intell community!
> 
> Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. W



How is that actionable, dumbfuck?

You don't know, because you lack the capacity of thought. You're just mindlessly flinging shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> *Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US*



Yeah, we've seen your cut & paste, you fucking retard. What we haven't seen is you provide logic and reason to support it.

Nor will we - you have no brain, monkey boi.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zmrzlina said:


> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.



Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.

The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.


----------



## Zmrzlina

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
Click to expand...


You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
Click to expand...


You are just wrong. The Mujahideen were not just the tribes of the north that eventually formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen.

Bin Laden was associated and allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is the CIA Bin Laden connection.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank57 needs a reminder. He drank the Raygun kool aid and refuses to take the remedy
> 
> As to the OP- The Gipper was the worst President in my lifetime  [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, except most economists give credit to Carter's guy, Volker on the Nixon/Ford inflation thing
> 
> 
> *Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.*
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


LOL


LOL

You can't spin the truth FuckWad


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zmrzlina said:


> You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.



Again, your rulers are lying to you. Osama bin Laden got no "foot" in Afghanistan and was expelled after the Soviet withdrawal.  bin Laden fled to the Sudan, where he stayed until 1996, after his attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak (which Barack Obama later succeeded at.) bin Laden fled to Somalia, where he sought refuge from the Taliban, who had defeated the old Mujahideen and wrested control of Afghanistan. He then went to Afghanistan.

So facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim; the group funded by Reagan drove Osama OUT of Afghanistan, but the group indirectly funded by Clinton brought him back.

Hey, you're not a Communist because you're particularly bright or well informed, now are you?


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your rulers are lying to you. Osama bin Laden got no "foot" in Afghanistan and was expelled after the Soviet withdrawal.  bin Laden fled to the Sudan, where he stayed until 1996, after his attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak (which Barack Obama later succeeded at.) bin Laden fled to Somalia, where he sought refuge from the Taliban, who had defeated the old Mujahideen and wrested control of Afghanistan.
> 
> So facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim; the group funded by Reagan drove Osama OUT of Afghanistan, but the group indirectly funded by Clinton brought him back.
> 
> Hey, you're not a Communist because you're particularly bright or well informed, now are you?
Click to expand...


Where does all that come from? Can you provide any sources or links. Sometimes links are difficult, but have you based these things on a book or something you have read?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

American history is taught by our enemies; Progressives who lie about FDR's greatness, LBJ's Civil Rights Record, McCarthy's Red Scare and Reagan's extraordinary record.


----------



## Zmrzlina

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your rulers are lying to you. Osama bin Laden got no "foot" in Afghanistan and was expelled after the Soviet withdrawal.  bin Laden fled to the Sudan, where he stayed until 1996, after his attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak (which Barack Obama later succeeded at.) bin Laden fled to Somalia, where he sought refuge from the Taliban, who had defeated the old Mujahideen and wrested control of Afghanistan.
> 
> So facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim; the group funded by Reagan drove Osama OUT of Afghanistan, but the group indirectly funded by Clinton brought him back.
> 
> Hey, you're not a Communist because you're particularly bright or well informed, now are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does all that come from? Can you provide any sources or links. Sometimes links are difficult, but have you based these things on a book or something you have read?
Click to expand...


Here's a hint, he's full of shit. 
Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana, Anjali Nirmal - Google Books


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> You are just wrong. The Mujahideen were not just the tribes of the north that eventually formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen.



bin Laden (bin is a title and not capitalized) was a foreign fighter, who actually never fought. He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.



> Bin Laden was associated and allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is the CIA Bin Laden connection.



Ah, conspiracy theories, how fun.

Of course there is no evidence that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was funded by the CIA, and he was warring against the main Muja far more than fighting Soviets from the start. He too fled after the Soviet defeat, back to Pakistan from where he came. Reemerging with bin Laden after the Taliban bloody coup.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your rulers are lying to you. Osama bin Laden got no "foot" in Afghanistan and was expelled after the Soviet withdrawal.  bin Laden fled to the Sudan, where he stayed until 1996, after his attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak (which Barack Obama later succeeded at.) bin Laden fled to Somalia, where he sought refuge from the Taliban, who had defeated the old Mujahideen and wrested control of Afghanistan.
> 
> So facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim; the group funded by Reagan drove Osama OUT of Afghanistan, but the group indirectly funded by Clinton brought him back.
> 
> Hey, you're not a Communist because you're particularly bright or well informed, now are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does all that come from? Can you provide any sources or links. Sometimes links are difficult, but have you based these things on a book or something you have read?
Click to expand...


You're kidding me, right?

Al-Qaeda involvement in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uncensored2008

Zmrzlina said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your rulers are lying to you. Osama bin Laden got no "foot" in Afghanistan and was expelled after the Soviet withdrawal.  bin Laden fled to the Sudan, where he stayed until 1996, after his attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Mubarak (which Barack Obama later succeeded at.) bin Laden fled to Somalia, where he sought refuge from the Taliban, who had defeated the old Mujahideen and wrested control of Afghanistan.
> 
> So facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim; the group funded by Reagan drove Osama OUT of Afghanistan, but the group indirectly funded by Clinton brought him back.
> 
> Hey, you're not a Communist because you're particularly bright or well informed, now are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does all that come from? Can you provide any sources or links. Sometimes links are difficult, but have you based these things on a book or something you have read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a hint, he's full of shit.
> Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities - N. C. Asthana, Anjali Nirmal - Google Books
Click to expand...


Uh sploogy, nothing in your link contradicts what I posted.... It confirms Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia, as I posted, and after the Afghan war, bin Laden fled to Sudan to pursue Jihad.

Can you say "fail?" I knew you could....


----------



## Meathead

Zmrzlina said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.
Click to expand...

That was started by Carter, when Zbigniew Brzezinski famously said, "Now we'll give them their own Vietnam."

Damned if it didn't work! The rest of your drivel is ignorance.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just wrong. The Mujahideen were not just the tribes of the north that eventually formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bin Laden (bin is a title and not capitalized) was a foreign fighter, who actually never fought. He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden was associated and allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is the CIA Bin Laden connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, conspiracy theories, how fun.
> 
> Of course there is no evidence that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was funded by the CIA, and he was warring against the main Muja far more than fighting Soviets from the start. He too fled after the Soviet defeat, back to Pakistan from where he came. Reemerging with bin Laden after the Taliban bloody coup.
Click to expand...


So does the capitalization rule about bin not needing to be capitalized supersede the rule about the first word in a sentence needing to be capitalized?

And you still haven't said where you got all this stuff. I think I saw a wikipedia thing. Is that all of it? A basically off topic  wikipedia thing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank




----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> So does the capitalization rule about bin not needing to be capitalized supersede the rule about the first word in a sentence needing to be capitalized?
> 
> And you still haven't said where you got all this stuff. I think I saw a wikipedia thing. Is that all of it? A basically off topic  wikipedia thing?



Wiki just shows how common the information is.

The "bin" thing is an Arabic deal, sort of "from the tribe."


----------



## Zmrzlina

Afghanistan under Soviet rule 





Afghanistan under Taliban rule





Wow. Such freedom. So Liberated.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Got it, 40+ HIGH LEVEL warnings to Dubya from Jan 20th Sept 2001, and he held not ONE meeting on it, meant it was Clinton's fault *shaking head**
Click to expand...


the paid trolls are out in full force now getting worried the truth about reagan is being exposed.


----------



## thanatos144

Zmrzlina said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
Click to expand...


He didn't you idiot .

tapatalk post


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you are an ignorant troll who can't refute facts so you must personally keep attacking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony, thy name is leftard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know about the August 5, 2001
> Presidential Daily Briefing that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." * However there were 40 warnings about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from January, 2001, when Bush became the President, to the 9/11 attacks seven months later,* according the new book "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation". President Bush and National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore them all!  *They didn't hold one high-level meeting about this overwhelming threat*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know you can cut and paste idiocy from the hate sites.
> 
> The problem you have is there is nothing there.
> 
> Bin Laden determined to attack.
> 
> What do YOU say Bush should have done?
> 
> No cut and paste from hate sites, no unrelated spew from KOS, Alternet, or Stormfront - what do YOU claim Bush should have or could have done with the obscure briefing?
> 
> You won't answer, you'll just fling more shit, it's all you have the ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't  have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
Click to expand...


you never get tired of taking paid troll censored to school here everyday do you?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?
Click to expand...


agent censored and the other paid trolls ignore this little fact that Bush should have gone to prison for doing that. they cant face facts like thats like FDR ordering the fleet to invade mexico instead of japan. pesky facts like that are too complicated for their drugged up minds to comprehend.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't
> have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What 40 warnings? Some vague warnings about possible terrorist attacks? Please.. And there was no 8 months. it took the Bush administration extra months to get his administration together because of the FL hanging chad debacle he got a late start. Clinton refused to take out Bin laden lets get that straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, You'll stick with the usual right wing crap, false premises, distortions and LIES
> 
> Extra months? Weird, Gore conceded a month after the election, you saying Dubya was to stupid to get his team together in a month?' AND the attack was EIGHT  months after being sworn in!
> 
> WHAT WAS HE WANTED FOR WHEN CLINTON WAS SUPPOSED TO 'TAKE HIM OUT'?
> 
> 
> BEFORE THIS:
> 
> 
> Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA (and specifically their elite Special Activities Division) to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized
> 
> 
> On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden's training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.
> 
> In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état
> 
> 
> 
> in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one in which bin Laden was riding
> 
> 
> In 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as "correctly focused on bin Laden", while Robert Oakley criticized their "obsession with Osama"
> 
> 
> WHAT DID DUBYA DO?
> 
> 
> *FLASHBACK: Bush On Bin Laden: I Really Just Dont Spend That Much Time On Him*
> 
> 
> George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: *Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. *W
> 
> 
> Bush listened to the briefing, then told the CIA briefer:* All right. Youve covered your ass, now. *
Click to expand...


 thats agents jroc and CENSORED for ya.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frank57 needs a reminder. He drank the Raygun kool aid and refuses to take the remedy
> 
> As to the OP- The Gipper was the worst President in my lifetime  [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


Thats crusader retard for you. got to remember,he is a distant cousin fo rayguns so he wont tolerate ONE SINGLE negative word about him. He goes into meltdown mode anytime  there is one.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BECAUSE Reagan defeated the USSR, the left will NEVER forgive him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he did, must have been how they saw him cut and run from the terrorists after he funded them that got them worried
Click to expand...


yep.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frank57 needs a reminder. He drank the Raygun kool aid and refuses to take the remedy
> 
> As to the OP- The Gipper was the worst President in my lifetime  [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, except most economists give credit to Carter's guy, Volker on the Nixon/Ford inflation thing
> 
> 
> *Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.*
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...



crusader retard can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is.


----------



## Meathead

thanatos144 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't you idiot .
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

Yup, whatever it is, it's an idiot. Although people have a right to post on a public forum, it escapes me why those so misinformed would bother. I am quite sure if they had an actual persona, they wouldn't.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Dad2K3 understands anything other than that his handler gives him a banana if he sccoops up shit from the radical left hate sites, and flings it here.
> 
> The monkey HAS NO BRAIN, he cannot carry on a conversation, he can only cut & paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In right wing speak, that means I don't buy into right wingers 'reality' where false premises, distortions and lies are King and they have Faux and hate talk radio to feed their disinformation campaign...
Click to expand...


yeah the kind they engage in.their handlers are getting frustrated you wont buy into their lies.they will have to check with their bosses on what new lies to post here now.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, after 40+ warnings in 8 months, he shouldn't  have held a single meeting on it right? Perhaps just go to the ranch? Focus on Iraq? W*hat do you think you Klowns would say if a Dem ignored  4 such warnings, much less 40, even without a specific target?* Grow up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't get any warnings, you moron.
> 
> "There was . . . an awareness by the government, including the president, of Osama bin Laden and the threat he posed in the United States and around the world," Fleischer said. "That included long-standing speculation about hijacking in the traditional sense, but not involving suicide bombers using airplanes as missiles."
> 
> A CIA spokesman said the agency routinely passed on intelligence citing the possibility that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack an airliner as part of a terrorist action against the United States. But a suicide attack involving an aircraft was never envisioned, the spokesman said."
> Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)
> 
> Pretty specific warning, huh?
> 
> 
> *And...do you know who asked for intelligence briefings?*
> 
> "The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was *requested by Bush, *who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States."
> CNN.com - White House releases*bin Laden memo - Apr 12, 2004
> 
> 
> Seems like Bush was far more responsible than the oaf in the White House now.....the one who took a nap while Benghazi was under attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....you're not totally useless...you can be used as a bad example.
> 
> 
> "...information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation officials and national security agencies. ... In a press briefing, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said *the threats were very general and did not mention a specific time, place or mode of terrorist attack."* http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...esident's_Daily_Briefing_Memo_(External_Links)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US*
> 
> 
> Bush listened to the briefing, then told the CIA briefer: All right. Youve covered your ass, now.
> 
> 
> Eichenwald, who says he has "read excerpts from many" of the CIA briefs prepared for Bush which preceded the 8/6/01 warning, details a number of them, and reports that the Bush Administration, and "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon", were determined to ignore them. They even went so far, he says, as to believe that "the C.I.A. had been fooled."
> 
> *"According to this theory," Eichenwald writes, "Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."*
> 
> "In response," to the months of ignored reports --- including a May 1 briefing warning that "a group presently in the United States" was planning an attack and that, as a June 22 brief noted, an attack by al-Qaeda could be "imminent" --- on June 29, "the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real."
> 
> 
> 
> *"The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden," that briefing read. It warned that Bin Laden operatives were planning attacks very soon that would have "dramatic consequences" and major casualties.*
> 
> Another brief from *July 1*, according to Eichenwald, warns that the operation was delayed, but *"will occur soon." *On *July 9*, according to "intelligence I reviewed", says Eichenwald, an extremist linked to al-Qaeda *"told his followers that there would soon be very big news."* But the report, even after all of the others, still failed launch the White House into action. *There were more. All, it seems, were downplayed, marginalized or all but ignored*
> 
> 
> 
> *On September 4, 2001 Richard Clarke, terrorism czar, wrote an infamous memo to Dr. Condoleezza Rice. It asked when are we going to get serious about the al Qaeda threat. Decision makers need to imagine a future day when hundreds of Americans lying dead in several countries including the United States. That future day may happen anytime. It happened seven days later.*
Click to expand...


he obviously has reading comprehension problems since pesky facts like that are too complicated for his warped mind to understand.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"There was ZERO actionable intel."*
> 
> Good thing, because after 40+ high level warnings, wouldn't had wanted Dubya to take time out of his fishing schedule to have ONE meeting on 40+ high level warnings  from his intell community!
> 
> Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. W
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that actionable, dumbfuck?
> 
> You don't know, because you lack the capacity of thought. You're just mindlessly flinging shit.
Click to expand...


Good little rightie, doing just what Limpballs ans comp taught you, pick out 1 small detail and leave the rest of it alone


There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. The PDB is considered highly sensitive and is distributed to only a handful of high-level officials



*June 29, 2001  "the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real."*



September 4, 2001 Richard Clarke, terrorism czar, wrote an infamous memo to Dr. Condoleezza Rice. It asked when are we going to get serious about the al Qaeda threat. Decision makers need to imagine a future day when hundreds of Americans lying dead in several countries including the United States. That future day may happen anytime. It happened seven days later.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Zmrzlina said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left office about as popular as anyone in history. Why on earth would he worry about his enshrined legacy? I can see the desperation in his detractors a quarter of a century after the man left office. Now that's a legacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
Click to expand...


and that his buddy Bush told his son to ignore the warnings as well and that all three of them have walked away scott free.


----------



## Uncensored2008

9/11 inside job said:


> Thats crusader retard for you. got to remember,he is a distant cousin fo rayguns so he wont tolerate ONE SINGLE negative word about him. He goes into meltdown mode anytime  there is one.



You're quite the sleazy little coward. Frightened to confront anyone, but still hiding and pissing yourself, then running to bite ankles. What a pathetic worm you are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just wrong. The Mujahideen were not just the tribes of the north that eventually formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen.
> 
> Bin Laden was associated and allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is the CIA Bin Laden connection.
Click to expand...


as always,censored gets his ass handed to him on a platter and embarrases himself.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Good little rightie, doing just what Limpballs ans comp taught you, pick out 1 small detail and leave the rest of it alone



What the fuck is a "Limpballs ans comp," monkey boi?

You really, truly are a retard/ 



> There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. The PDB is considered highly sensitive and is distributed to only a handful of high-level officials



Oh look, more fucking cut & paste from the hate sites. You cannot construct a single sentence on your own - you mindless fuck.

Get thee to a baboonary.


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was started by Carter, when Zbigniew Brzezinski famously said, "Now we'll give them their own Vietnam."
> 
> Damned if it didn't work! The rest of your drivel is ignorance.
Click to expand...


*After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly*


The Reagan Doctrine was a strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.

Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy.


*With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter's Afghanistan policy into a more global "doctrine", including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.*

Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can spin this anyway you like but the fact of the matter is that Reagan provided material support to Islamic militants to undermined the Soviets giving the same Islamic militants which included Bin Laden, a foothold in Afghanistan for which the rest is history. Sorry to break it to you bud, but blowback is a bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> That was started by Carter, when Zbigniew Brzezinski famously said, "Now we'll give them their own Vietnam."
> 
> Damned if it didn't work! The rest of your drivel is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly*
> 
> 
> The Reagan Doctrine was a strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.
> 
> Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy.
> 
> 
> *With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter's Afghanistan policy into a more global "doctrine", including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.*
> 
> Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yup. Damned well worked a lot better than Detente. He wisely continued Carter's policy in Afghanistan along with a full-court press which helped unravel the USSR and the old Brezhnev hacks.

You are not as stupid as I thought, but that's not much of a standard.


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
Click to expand...


We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan

*Jimmy Carter&#8217;s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of &#8220;Al Qaeda&#8221; in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.*

Brzezinski told Al Qaeda&#8217;s forefathers &#8211; the Mujahadin:

    We know of their deep belief in god &#8211; that they&#8217;re confident that their struggle will succeed. &#8211; That land over-there is yours &#8211; and you&#8217;ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you&#8217;ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.

*Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985*






Front row, from left: *Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan&#8217;s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)*, *Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster*; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a *Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.* (source RAWA)








Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 | Global Research


*GROW A BRAIN BUBBA*


----------



## Uncensored2008

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was started by Carter, when Zbigniew Brzezinski famously said, "Now we'll give them their own Vietnam."
> 
> Damned if it didn't work! The rest of your drivel is ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly*
> 
> 
> The Reagan Doctrine was a strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.
> 
> Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy.
> 
> 
> *With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter's Afghanistan policy into a more global "doctrine", including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.*
> 
> Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. Damned well worked a lot better than Detente. He wisely continued Carter's policy in Afghanistan along with a full-court press which helped unravel the USSR and the old Brezhnev hacks.
> 
> You are not as stupid as I thought, but that's not much of a standard.
Click to expand...


He's more stupid than you thought. He actually thought he was defaming Reagan. He doesn't grasp what it is he posts, he just madly cuts and pastes from the hate sites.


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was started by Carter, when Zbigniew Brzezinski famously said, "Now we'll give them their own Vietnam."
> 
> Damned if it didn't work! The rest of your drivel is ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly*
> 
> 
> The Reagan Doctrine was a strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.
> 
> Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy.
> 
> 
> *With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter's Afghanistan policy into a more global "doctrine", including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.*
> 
> Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. Damned well worked a lot better than Detente. He wisely continued Carter's policy in Afghanistan along with a full-court press which helped unravel the USSR and the old Brezhnev hacks.
> 
> You are not as stupid as I thought, but that's not much of a standard.
Click to expand...




Five Friends Food 'Fresh Bars' 	What We Know about Climate Change 	Inside Climate News 	Go Fossil Free 	RealClearScience Newton Blog
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
By Tom Maertens
(A version of this originally appeared in the Mankato, MN Free Press.)

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagans 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who was there.

The plutocrats idolize Reagan because he cut taxes on the wealthy -- on income, capital gains, interest, and dividends -- and increased taxes on working people, including raising the self-employment (SECA) tax rate by 60%. He made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), and school lunch programs. Mark Hertsgaard (On Bended Knee: the Press and the Reagan Presidency) called it arguably the single greatest government-led transfer of wealth in history, and in the direction of the top two percent; the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third under Reagan. The result is an enduring, entitled class of individuals who believe that work should be taxed, but wealth should not, and probably, like Reagan that The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless. They control the Republican Party.

Their revisionist history makes Reagan into a small-government fiscal conservative, but he actually grew the government by 53% (Mises Institute), increasing military expenditures by 27% and creating another new department, Veterans Affairs. He never submitted a balanced budget and ended up tripling the national debt to $3 trillion. His S&L bailout cost 2.4 times more to fix (relative to GDP) than Bushs financial crisis. The Washington Post reported in Reagan's last year that "In less than a decade, the world's largest creditor nation has become its leading debtor.

*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.* As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord. 



Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan



This is where your lack of a brain really hurts you. You ran off to the hate site and put in keywords to get shit to fling, all the while never grasping that the shit you were loading up was discredited and dismissed long ago.

This is because;

a.) You don't have the intellect to understand the conversation on the board.
b.) You don't have the intellect to grasp the talking points you get from the hate sites.

You really are stupid.


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan
> 
> *Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.*
> 
> Brzezinski told Al Qaedas forefathers  the Mujahadin:
> 
> We know of their deep belief in god  that theyre confident that their struggle will succeed.  That land over-there is yours  and youll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and youll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.
> 
> *Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Front row, from left: *Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)*, *Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster*; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a *Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.* (source RAWA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 | Global Research
> 
> 
> *GROW A BRAIN BUBBA*
Click to expand...

I take what I said about you not being as stupid as I thought, and then some. Be careful of what you link even if you are already a fool.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Five Friends Food 'Fresh Bars' 	What We Know about Climate Change 	Inside Climate News 	Go Fossil Free 	RealClearScience Newton Blog
> Monday, March 21, 2011
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> By Tom Maertens



More shit from the hate sites, from the forum monkey.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan: beat inflation at home and beat the USSR abroad.
> 
> Not bad, Ronnie. Not bad at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except most economists give credit to Carter's guy, Volker on the Nixon/Ford inflation thing
> 
> 
> *Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.*
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> You can't spin the truth FuckWad
Click to expand...




*LOL, By thaty 'rational', give the credit to Ike*


Eisenhower Doctrine

The term Eisenhower Doctrine refers to a speech by President Dwight David Eisenhower on 5 January 1957, within a "Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East". Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.


* Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."*


Eisenhower Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five Friends Food 'Fresh Bars' 	What We Know about Climate Change 	Inside Climate News 	Go Fossil Free 	RealClearScience Newton Blog
> Monday, March 21, 2011
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> By Tom Maertens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More shit from the hate sites, from the forum monkey.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan
> 
> *Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.*
> 
> Brzezinski told Al Qaedas forefathers  the Mujahadin:
> 
> We know of their deep belief in god  that theyre confident that their struggle will succeed.  That land over-there is yours  and youll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and youll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.
> 
> *Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Front row, from left: *Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)*, *Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster*; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a *Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.* (source RAWA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 | Global Research
> 
> 
> *GROW A BRAIN BUBBA*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take what I said about you not being as stupid as I thought, and then some. Be careful of what you link even if you are already a fool.
Click to expand...



What's that, Reagan took Carters policy and EXPLODED it while giving US Bin Laden/Al Queda in the process? Blow back...


----------



## thanatos144

What it boils down to is that there has never been a Democrat president who has left the country in a better position after he left. Ronald Reagan did.

tapatalk post


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where your lack of a brain really hurts you. You ran off to the hate site and put in keywords to get shit to fling, all the while never grasping that the shit you were loading up was discredited and dismissed long ago.
> 
> This is because;
> 
> a.) You don't have the intellect to understand the conversation on the board.
> b.) You don't have the intellect to grasp the talking points you get from the hate sites.
> 
> You really are stupid.
Click to expand...



Hey, as long as YOU say so right? After all it's SOOO much fun listening to Klowns who are NEVER on the correct side of ANY policy or history since the US founding


* The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979  February 1989)*

"Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism"  

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173[/ame]


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> What it boils down to is that there has never been a Democrat president who has left the country in a better position after he left. Ronald Reagan did.
> 
> tapatalk post



Sure, if you leave out the FACT that he tripled US debt, took US from a creditor nation to debtor nation, cut taxes on the rich while taxes on the avg worker increased, funded then cut and ran from terrorists, ignored the regulator warnings from Mr Gray starting in 1984 on the S&L crisis that Poppy Bush inherited, etc, etc, etc

Dem? Look to FDR or Clinton, or OBAMA

*June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000*


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zmrzlina said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are pissed off that he equipped, trained and funded the group that attacked the US on 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan
> 
> *Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.*
> 
> Brzezinski told Al Qaedas forefathers  the Mujahadin:
> 
> We know of their deep belief in god  that theyre confident that their struggle will succeed.  That land over-there is yours  and youll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and youll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.
> 
> *Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Front row, from left: *Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)*, *Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster*; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a *Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.* (source RAWA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 | Global Research
> 
> 
> *GROW A BRAIN BUBBA*
Click to expand...


agent censores handlers are going to get desperate now trying to think up new lies to tell him to post now after you took him to school just then especially with that photo.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly*
> 
> 
> The Reagan Doctrine was a strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.
> 
> Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy.
> 
> 
> *With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter's Afghanistan policy into a more global "doctrine", including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.*
> 
> Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Damned well worked a lot better than Detente. He wisely continued Carter's policy in Afghanistan along with a full-court press which helped unravel the USSR and the old Brezhnev hacks.
> 
> You are not as stupid as I thought, but that's not much of a standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five Friends Food 'Fresh Bars' 	What We Know about Climate Change 	Inside Climate News 	Go Fossil Free 	RealClearScience Newton Blog
> Monday, March 21, 2011
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> By Tom Maertens
> (A version of this originally appeared in the Mankato, MN Free Press.)
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagans 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who was there.
> 
> The plutocrats idolize Reagan because he cut taxes on the wealthy -- on income, capital gains, interest, and dividends -- and increased taxes on working people, including raising the self-employment (SECA) tax rate by 60%. He made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), and school lunch programs. Mark Hertsgaard (On Bended Knee: the Press and the Reagan Presidency) called it arguably the single greatest government-led transfer of wealth in history, and in the direction of the top two percent; the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third under Reagan. The result is an enduring, entitled class of individuals who believe that work should be taxed, but wealth should not, and probably, like Reagan that The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless. They control the Republican Party.
> 
> Their revisionist history makes Reagan into a small-government fiscal conservative, but he actually grew the government by 53% (Mises Institute), increasing military expenditures by 27% and creating another new department, Veterans Affairs. He never submitted a balanced budget and ended up tripling the national debt to $3 trillion. His S&L bailout cost 2.4 times more to fix (relative to GDP) than Bushs financial crisis. The Washington Post reported in Reagan's last year that "In less than a decade, the world's largest creditor nation has become its leading debtor.
> 
> *Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.* As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord.
> 
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


three farts in a row from them after that,can only sling shit in defeat in frustration like the monkey trolls they are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except most economists give credit to Carter's guy, Volker on the Nixon/Ford inflation thing
> 
> 
> *Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.*
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> You can't spin the truth FuckWad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL, By thaty 'rational', give the credit to Ike*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine
> 
> The term Eisenhower Doctrine refers to a speech by President Dwight David Eisenhower on 5 January 1957, within a "Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East". Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.
> 
> 
> * Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


as always,you take him to school again. everytime they get frustrated with hwo you expose the CIA's lies about reagan,they ALWAYS retreat to that video of his speech ignoring that that speech had no effect on what Gorby did in that the collapse of communism did not happen to AFTER reagan got out of office. that it never happend on his watch. they always have to retreat to that when they get frustrated.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is that there has never been a Democrat president who has left the country in a better position after he left. Ronald Reagan did.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if you leave out the FACT that he tripled US debt, took US from a creditor nation to debtor nation, cut taxes on the rich while taxes on the avg worker increased, funded then cut and ran from terrorists, ignored the regulator warnings from Mr Gray starting in 1984 on the S&L crisis that Poppy Bush inherited, etc, etc, etc
> 
> Dem? Look to FDR or Clinton, or OBAMA
> 
> *June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000*
Click to expand...


he will ask his boss for a raise after getting his ass handed to him on a platter just then.


----------



## Meathead

@ Babydaddythree



Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is that there has never been a Democrat president who has left the country in a better position after he left. Ronald Reagan did.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if you leave out the FACT that he tripled US debt, took US from a creditor nation to debtor nation, cut taxes on the rich while taxes on the avg worker increased, funded then cut and ran from terrorists, ignored the regulator warnings from Mr Gray starting in 1984 on the S&L crisis that Poppy Bush inherited, etc, etc, etc
> 
> Dem? Look to FDR or Clinton, or OBAMA
> 
> *June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000*
Click to expand...

Ya know, being a babydaddy of three, even if you are supporting them, is not going to confer any credence on your posts. Just thought I'd point that out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dot Com said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> "Bin Laden determined to attack?"
> 
> Did Clinton have the airlines on high alert? The attack on the WTC under Clinton was using a truck bomb - so a repeat attack by the same group would be assumed to use the same means. After all, it was Al Qaeda who trained Terry Nickles to make the truck bomb used for OKC, with great effect. To Al Qaeda crafted successes, what would have made Bush think that a Kamakazi attack was in the works?
> 
> Just because you're a partisan hack and hate him?  Seriously, are you fools really this fucking retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> Shut down what alert? There was no alert. The fact that you have to lie, demonstrates just how stupid the shit you post is.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't put "back in effect" what was never in effect. And read the brief, there is nothing there. Nothing about airlines, nothing about targets, just ethereal reference to the fact that Muslims hate us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED"*
> 
> 8.1 THE SUMMER OF THREAT
> 
> *As 2001 began, counterterrorism officials were receiving frequent but fragmentary reports about threats. Indeed, there appeared to be possible threats almost everywhere the United States had interests-including at home.*
> 
> To understand how the escalation in threat reporting was handled in the summer of 2001, it is useful to understand how threat information in general is collected and conveyed
> 
> 
> *There were more than 40 intelligence articles in the PDBs from January 20 to September 10, 2001, that related to Bin Ladin. The PDB is considered highly sensitive and is distributed to only a handful of high-level officials*
> 
> 
> 
> *The Drumbeat Begins*
> 
> *In the spring of 2001, the level of reporting on terrorist threats and planned attacks increased dramatically to its highest level since the millennium alert. *
> 
> *Over the next few weeks, the CIA repeatedly issued warnings-including calls from DCI Tenet to Clarke-that Abu Zubaydah was planning an operation in the near future. *
> 
> 
> 
> The interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) that Clarke chaired discussed the Abu Zubaydah reports on *April 19.The next day*, a briefing to top officials reported *"Bin Ladin planning multiple operations."* When the deputies discussed al Qaeda policy on April 30, they began with a briefing on the threat.
> 
> 
> In May 2001..*"Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack" and "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing." *In early *May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York*. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on *May 15* regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. *The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives."* On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was *"UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *High Probability of Near-Term "Spectacular" Attacks
> 
> Threat reports surged in June and July, reaching an even higher peak of urgency.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE HERE*
> 
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
> 
> 
> *The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001.37 Redacted material is indicated by brackets.*
> 
> *Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US *
> 
> 
> 
> ....*We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [-] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.*
> 
> *  Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.*
> 
> * The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. **CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.*
> 
> 
> 
> National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Theres also this:
> 
> Ashcroft "Didn't Want To Hear Of Al Qaeda" In High Threat Summer Of 2001 | Crooks and Liars
> 
> 
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: Good afternoon, gentlemen.
> 
> Mr. Pickard, on January 21st of this year you met with our staff. Is that correct?
> 
> PICKARD: That's correct.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: And according to our staff report, you told them that in June 2001, you met with Attorney General Ashcroft and he told you that you would be the acting FBI director.
> 
> PICKARD: That's correct.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: You had some seven or eight meetings with the attorney general?
> 
> PICKARD: Somewhere in that number. I have the exact number, but I don't know the total.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: And according to the statement that our staff took from you, you said that you would start each meeting discussing either counterterrorism or counterintelligence. At the same time the threat level was going up and was very high. Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these meetings. Is that correct?
> 
> PICKARD: I told him at least on two occasions.
> 
> BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff according to this statement that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore. Is that correct?
> 
> PICKARD: That is correct.
> 
> (h/t Mike)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repubs  more interested in wars-for-profit (profit for the defense contractors that is) than protecting the homeland
Click to expand...


first political chick gets her ass handed to her on a platter by dad earlier exposing her lies how the economy flourised under reagan when dad provides facts that he actually betrayed the middle and lower class familys and the economy was much worse under reagan than carter,so after she evades those facts,the lying troll comes up with a NEW lie about Bush now.

 to add on this this great well done post of dot coms here,more facts that Bush had not only multiple warnings from several different heads of other countries but from FBI agents as well whom he threatned to arrest if they tried to stop them.

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

as you can see from this link below,the Bushs long time pal and friend clinton was just as much involved in 9/11 as well letting it happen.

Order Out of Chaos - 05


----------



## CrusaderFrank

How stupid and desperate do you have to be to mistake the Mujaheddin for Al Qaeda?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## Camp

No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that. No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you are just stupid, a few are shameless liars.
> 
> The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance. The Taliban arose from Pakistan, the "great democracy" funded and promoted by Clinton. (And later, that idiot Bush funded them as well.) Al Qaeda came out of Saudi Arabia. What you fucktard Communists are not told by your rulers is not one dime of U.S. funds EVER went to bin Laden - not one bullet or gun - not ever. What your rulers won't tell you - because they need your stupid an pliable, is that the whole reason rich boy bin Laden was allowed to fight with the Mujahideen was that he had money and could buy weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan
> 
> *Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.*
> 
> Brzezinski told Al Qaedas forefathers  the Mujahadin:
> 
> We know of their deep belief in god  that theyre confident that their struggle will succeed.  That land over-there is yours  and youll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and youll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.
> 
> *Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Front row, from left: *Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)*, *Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster*; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a *Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.* (source RAWA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 | Global Research
> 
> 
> *GROW A BRAIN BUBBA*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> agent censores handlers are going to get desperate now trying to think up new lies to tell him to post now after you took him to school just then especially with that photo.
Click to expand...


while having fun trying to watch them weasel out of this picture of reagan,its going to be fun watching these agents try and weasel out of this picture of Bush hanging out and partying with saudi's as well.  Bush must be BI SEXUAL.the fact he is kissing one of them on the mouth here. I would say these pics of reagan and Bush we have posted Dad speak a thousand words wouldnt you?

The Atlantean Conspiracy: The 9/11 Inside Job (part 3)

I would say from these photos in this link of mine that little Bush went down the same roadpath that daddy Bush did when he was VP under reagan.I would say daddy Bush introduced junior to all these loveable guys at some point when he was the VP the fact that he was also friends with these pals of Ronnies wouldnt you?

these trolls no doubt are going to have to check with their handlers and spend some time on the computer going back and forth with them on what kind of lies to come up and post next to try and get around these facts of ours I guarantee.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that. No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan


Camp, you're too stupid. Shut down FFS!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

^someone farted in here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Which one is bin laden?


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that. No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Camp, you're too stupid. Shut down FFS!
Click to expand...


How about if you shut down FFS. Just a suggestion.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=iOqZz_oEdig]Beirut Remembered - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that. No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Camp, you're too stupid. Shut down FFS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if you shut down FFS. Just a suggestion.
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=iOqZz_oEdig]Beirut Remembered - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Why would you post that instead of just shutting down? Weird.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Camp said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that. No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> Camp, you're too stupid. Shut down FFS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if you shut down FFS. Just a suggestion.
> 
> He sure countered that and sure showed you Camp.
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=iOqZz_oEdig]Beirut Remembered - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just wrong. The Mujahideen were not just the tribes of the north that eventually formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bin Laden (bin is a title and not capitalized) was a foreign fighter, who actually never fought. He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden was associated and allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is the CIA Bin Laden connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, conspiracy theories, how fun.
> 
> Of course there is no evidence that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was funded by the CIA, and he was warring against the main Muja far more than fighting Soviets from the start. He too fled after the Soviet defeat, back to Pakistan from where he came. Reemerging with bin Laden after the Taliban bloody coup.
Click to expand...


*He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.*

YOUR LINK FROM NEXT POST

Al-Qaeda involvement in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


LOL


Bin Laden played a central role in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers in Afghanistan

 In 1989, the same year that the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden founded his international terrorist organization, Al Qaeda (The Base) to train fighters for the global jihad against America.

Back in Saudi Arabia in 1990, bin Laden found the Saudi monarchy cooperating closely with the United States in repelling Sadam Hussein Sadam Hussein s invasion of Kuwait. Angered by the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil during the Gulf War, bin Laden criticized the Saudi monarchy for selling out to the infidel Americans.

Who Is Osama Bin Laden? - Forbes


The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979  February 1989)

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173]Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism: John Cooley: 9780745319179: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> How stupid and desperate do you have to be to mistake the Mujaheddin for Al Qaeda?



The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979  February 1989)

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173[/ame]

A CIA program called Operation Cyclone (Reagan) channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation

At the same time, a growing number of Arab mujahideen joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations,* particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat *which was funded by the Saudi Arabia government as well as by individual *Muslims (particularly Saudi businessmen who were approached by bin Laden). *Together, these sources donated some $600 million a year to jihad.


In* 1984, Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK),* or the "Services Office", a Muslim organization founded to raise and channel funds and recruit foreign mujahideen for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, was established in Peshawar, Pakistan, by bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a *Palestinian Islamic scholar and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAK *organized guest houses in Peshawar, near the Afghan border, and gathered supplies for the construction of paramilitary training camps to prepare foreign recruits for the Afghan war front.* Bin Laden became a "major financier" of the mujahideen*, spending his own money and using his connections with "the Saudi royal family and the petro-billionaires of the Gulf" to influence public opinion about the war and raise additional funds.


From 1986, *MAK* began to set up a network of recruiting offices in the U.S., the hub of which was the Al Kifah Refugee Center at the Farouq Mosque on Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue. Among notable figures at the Brooklyn center were "double agent" Ali Mohamed, whom FBI special agent Jack Cloonan called "bin Laden's first trainer," and* "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman, a leading recruiter of mujahideen for Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda evolved from MAK.*


*Azzam and bin Laden began to establish camps in Afghanistan in 1987*


Understanding Terror Networks.
Understanding Terror Networks | Marc Sageman


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just wrong. The Mujahideen were not just the tribes of the north that eventually formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bin Laden (bin is a title and not capitalized) was a foreign fighter, who actually never fought. He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden was associated and allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is the CIA Bin Laden connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, conspiracy theories, how fun.
> 
> Of course there is no evidence that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was funded by the CIA, and he was warring against the main Muja far more than fighting Soviets from the start. He too fled after the Soviet defeat, back to Pakistan from where he came. Reemerging with bin Laden after the Taliban bloody coup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.*
> 
> YOUR LINK FROM NEXT POST
> 
> Al-Qaeda involvement in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> Bin Laden played a central role in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers in Afghanistan
> 
> In 1989, the same year that the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden founded his international terrorist organization, Al Qaeda (The Base) to train fighters for the global jihad against America.
> 
> Back in Saudi Arabia in 1990, bin Laden found the Saudi monarchy cooperating closely with the United States in repelling Sadam Hussein Sadam Hussein s invasion of Kuwait. Angered by the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil during the Gulf War, bin Laden criticized the Saudi monarchy for selling out to the infidel Americans.
> 
> Who Is Osama Bin Laden? - Forbes
> 
> 
> The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979  February 1989)
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173]Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism: John Cooley: 9780745319179: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...



Yes stupid?

And?

Get thee to a baboonary.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Camp, you're too stupid. Shut down FFS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if you shut down FFS. Just a suggestion.
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=iOqZz_oEdig]Beirut Remembered - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you post that instead of just shutting down? Weird.
Click to expand...


Not weird at all. Just making sure some guys get remembered. Sometimes people forget. Especially when it comes to Reagan worshipers. They like to forget stuff while they are making other stuff up.
You Reagan worshipers should like this one. There is a little comment by him at the beginning. Pretty much his reaction to the tragedy he caused. A few words

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=5xp1gHzDRMk]24th MAU They Came In Peace: 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dad2three

Camp said:


> No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that. No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan



" No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because *no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that.* No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan "




*A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen.*

"I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials.


*"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. "I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position."*


Aide: Reagan Left Marines Vulnerable in Beirut | Fox News


*Making an already-dangerous situation even more hazardous, the Marines were under strict presidential orders not to load their weapons  this, so that they would appear as peacekeepers and not as armed belligerents in the conflict* and despite the fact that they were moving into a war zone.



*Realistically, they had become sitting ducks from the moment they entered Beirut.* And as a result of their absurd orders, when the explosives-laden truck sped toward their doomed barracks, *the two unarmed guards had no way of stopping it.*

*According to Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the Marines in Beirut: It didnt take a military expert to realize that our troops had been placed in an indefensible situation. Anyone following the situation in Lebanon in ordinary news reports could realize a tragedy was in the making.*


In 1983 debacle, Reagan escaped the blame game - phillyburbs.com: Entertainment


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that. No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " No matter what graph you use you will never find the graph that shows the comparisons of Presidents that sent Marines into combat zones with orders to carry unloaded weapons. You won't find that graph because *no other President in history ever gave that stupid decision and ordered Marines into a combat zone with unloaded weapons. Reagan was the only President to ever do that.* No graph is ever going to overcome or override that stupid stunt that killed 250 unarmed Marines in Beirut. Fuck Ronald Reagan "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen.*
> 
> "I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials.
> 
> 
> *"They had no mission but to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's-eye," Weinberger said. "I begged the president at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position."*
> 
> 
> Aide: Reagan Left Marines Vulnerable in Beirut | Fox News
> 
> 
> *Making an already-dangerous situation even more hazardous, the Marines were under strict presidential orders not to load their weapons &#8212; this, so that they would appear as peacekeepers and not as armed belligerents in the conflict* and despite the fact that they were moving into a war zone.
> 
> 
> 
> *Realistically, they had become &#8220;sitting ducks&#8221; from the moment they entered Beirut.* And as a result of their absurd orders, when the explosives-laden truck sped toward their doomed barracks, *the two unarmed guards had no way of stopping it.*
> 
> *According to Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, the commander of the Marines in Beirut: &#8220;It didn&#8217;t take a military expert to realize that our troops had been placed in an indefensible situation. Anyone following the situation in Lebanon in ordinary news reports could realize a tragedy was in the making.*
> 
> 
> In 1983 debacle, Reagan escaped the blame game - phillyburbs.com: Entertainment
Click to expand...


crusader retard of course will claim that Casper never said that about reagan to defend his cousin,that its an unreliable source or whatever.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> 24th MAU They Came In Peace: 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing - YouTube


Seriously Camp, shut it down. You and 
your dingbat links.

Please. (You are a dime a dozen you know?)


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How stupid and desperate do you have to be to mistake the Mujaheddin for Al Qaeda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979 &#8211; February 1989)
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173]Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism: John Cooley: 9780745319179: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> A CIA program called Operation Cyclone (Reagan) channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation
> 
> At the same time, a growing number of Arab mujahideen joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations,* particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat *which was funded by the Saudi Arabia government as well as by individual *Muslims (particularly Saudi businessmen who were approached by bin Laden). *Together, these sources donated some $600 million a year to jihad.
> 
> 
> In* 1984, Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK),* or the "Services Office", a Muslim organization founded to raise and channel funds and recruit foreign mujahideen for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, was established in Peshawar, Pakistan, by bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a *Palestinian Islamic scholar and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAK *organized guest houses in Peshawar, near the Afghan border, and gathered supplies for the construction of paramilitary training camps to prepare foreign recruits for the Afghan war front.* Bin Laden became a "major financier" of the mujahideen*, spending his own money and using his connections with "the Saudi royal family and the petro-billionaires of the Gulf" to influence public opinion about the war and raise additional funds.
> 
> 
> From 1986, *MAK* began to set up a network of recruiting offices in the U.S., the hub of which was the Al Kifah Refugee Center at the Farouq Mosque on Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue. Among notable figures at the Brooklyn center were "double agent" Ali Mohamed, whom FBI special agent Jack Cloonan called "bin Laden's first trainer," and* "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman, a leading recruiter of mujahideen for Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda evolved from MAK.*
> 
> 
> *Azzam and bin Laden began to establish camps in Afghanistan in 1987*
> 
> 
> Understanding Terror Networks.
> Understanding Terror Networks | Marc Sageman
Click to expand...


i love the hypocrisy of frank,like HE isnt desperate. thats why he goes into meltdown mode and has heart attacks when the corruption of reagan is exposed.

the only ones that ger desperate are the reaganut worshippers led by their cheerleader frank.lol


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!
Click to expand...


You might be a stupid feral baboon, but at least you're a fucking liar...

The Taliban didn't exist in 1985 - fucktard.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just wrong. The Mujahideen were not just the tribes of the north that eventually formed the northern alliance. Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bin Laden (bin is a title and not capitalized) was a foreign fighter, who actually never fought. He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bin Laden was associated and allied with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That is the CIA Bin Laden connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, conspiracy theories, how fun.
> 
> Of course there is no evidence that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was funded by the CIA, and he was warring against the main Muja far more than fighting Soviets from the start. He too fled after the Soviet defeat, back to Pakistan from where he came. Reemerging with bin Laden after the Taliban bloody coup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.*
> 
> YOUR LINK FROM NEXT POST
> 
> Al-Qaeda involvement in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> Bin Laden played a central role in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers in Afghanistan
> 
> In 1989, the same year that the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden founded his international terrorist organization, Al Qaeda (The Base) to train fighters for the global jihad against America.
> 
> Back in Saudi Arabia in 1990, bin Laden found the Saudi monarchy cooperating closely with the United States in repelling Sadam Hussein Sadam Hussein &#8216;s invasion of Kuwait. Angered by the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil during the Gulf War, bin Laden criticized the Saudi monarchy for selling out to the &#8220;infidel&#8221; Americans.
> 
> Who Is Osama Bin Laden? - Forbes
> 
> 
> The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979 &#8211; February 1989)
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173]Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism: John Cooley: 9780745319179: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...


the REAL osama bin laden has been exposed and they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.

When Osama Bin Ladin Was 'Tim Osman'

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/603

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0228

http://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/

http://humansarefree.com/2011/05/proof-that-osama-bin-laden-was-cia-and.html

and still even MORE proof he worked for the CIA and was killed in 2001,

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/05/bush-knew-bin-laden-murdered-in-2001/


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bin Laden (bin is a title and not capitalized) was a foreign fighter, who actually never fought. He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, conspiracy theories, how fun.
> 
> Of course there is no evidence that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was funded by the CIA, and he was warring against the main Muja far more than fighting Soviets from the start. He too fled after the Soviet defeat, back to Pakistan from where he came. Reemerging with bin Laden after the Taliban bloody coup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He was allowed to be with the Mujahideen PURELY because he had money. At the end of the war, he was shown the door.*
> 
> YOUR LINK FROM NEXT POST
> 
> Al-Qaeda involvement in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> Bin Laden played a central role in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers in Afghanistan
> 
> In 1989, the same year that the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden founded his international terrorist organization, Al Qaeda (The Base) to train fighters for the global jihad against America.
> 
> Back in Saudi Arabia in 1990, bin Laden found the Saudi monarchy cooperating closely with the United States in repelling Sadam Hussein Sadam Hussein s invasion of Kuwait. Angered by the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil during the Gulf War, bin Laden criticized the Saudi monarchy for selling out to the infidel Americans.
> 
> Who Is Osama Bin Laden? - Forbes
> 
> 
> The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979  February 1989)
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173]Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism: John Cooley: 9780745319179: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the REAL osama bin laden has been exposed and they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.
> 
> When Osama Bin Ladin Was 'Tim Osman'
Click to expand...

Could you try being a little less annoying? At least tone it down.

Thanks


----------



## LA RAM FAN

^someone farted in here.


----------



## Camp

Meathead said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 24th MAU They Came In Peace: 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Camp, shut it down. You and
> your dingbat links.
> 
> Please. (You are a dime a dozen you know?)
Click to expand...


Seriously Meathead, if you are going to defend Reagan you have to be prepared with something more than  wha wha wha stop it.



Beirut Memorial On Line


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How stupid and desperate do you have to be to mistake the Mujaheddin for Al Qaeda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979  February 1989)
> 
> [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/0745319173[/ame]
> 
> A CIA program called Operation Cyclone (Reagan) channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviet occupation
> 
> At the same time, a growing number of Arab mujahideen joined the jihad against the Afghan Marxist regime, facilitated by international Muslim organizations,* particularly the Maktab al-Khidamat *which was funded by the Saudi Arabia government as well as by individual *Muslims (particularly Saudi businessmen who were approached by bin Laden). *Together, these sources donated some $600 million a year to jihad.
> 
> 
> In* 1984, Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK),* or the "Services Office", a Muslim organization founded to raise and channel funds and recruit foreign mujahideen for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, was established in Peshawar, Pakistan, by bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a *Palestinian Islamic scholar and member of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAK *organized guest houses in Peshawar, near the Afghan border, and gathered supplies for the construction of paramilitary training camps to prepare foreign recruits for the Afghan war front.* Bin Laden became a "major financier" of the mujahideen*, spending his own money and using his connections with "the Saudi royal family and the petro-billionaires of the Gulf" to influence public opinion about the war and raise additional funds.
> 
> 
> From 1986, *MAK* began to set up a network of recruiting offices in the U.S., the hub of which was the Al Kifah Refugee Center at the Farouq Mosque on Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue. Among notable figures at the Brooklyn center were "double agent" Ali Mohamed, whom FBI special agent Jack Cloonan called "bin Laden's first trainer," and* "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman, a leading recruiter of mujahideen for Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda evolved from MAK.*
> 
> 
> *Azzam and bin Laden began to establish camps in Afghanistan in 1987*
> 
> 
> Understanding Terror Networks.
> Understanding Terror Networks | Marc Sageman
Click to expand...

^ that stupid and desperate


----------



## JoeB131

thanatos144 said:


> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11



I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43.  We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world. 

That's what I remember.  That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

^ possible bin Laden sighting!!

ZOMG!!  It's an A-rab!!


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43.  We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world.
> 
> That's what I remember.  That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.
Click to expand...


Then what happened? you are now consumed with hate...Not too much demand for people like you id imagine


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane? 

Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11

comedy gold from the zionist shill.hahaha. love how he evaded all those links of mine that proved Bush was everybit just as much responsible if not more so.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Bush wasnt responsible,thats why at tax payers expense,he took long vacations at his ranch home in texas the majority of his time the first 9 months in office ignoring all warnings.


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!
Click to expand...


Women in the Taliban?..who knew?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> That's what I remember.  That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.



If you had put on your resume that you blacklisted Mormons, no employer would have touched you with a 10-foot pole.


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, except most economists give credit to Carter's guy, Volker on the Nixon/Ford inflation thing
> 
> 
> *Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.*
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> You can't spin the truth FuckWad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL, By thaty 'rational', give the credit to Ike*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine
> 
> The term Eisenhower Doctrine refers to a speech by President Dwight David Eisenhower on 5 January 1957, within a "Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East". Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.
> 
> 
> * Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




Libs love tyrannical government



> *Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit*
> 
> Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
> 
> On 9-10 May of this year, the May 14 memorandum explained, Sen. Edward Kennedys close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. (Tunney was Kennedys law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
> 
> Kennedys message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations, the memorandum stated. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.
> 
> Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
> 
> First he offered to visit Moscow. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.




Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> @ Babydaddythree
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is that there has never been a Democrat president who has left the country in a better position after he left. Ronald Reagan did.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if you leave out the FACT that he tripled US debt, took US from a creditor nation to debtor nation, cut taxes on the rich while taxes on the avg worker increased, funded then cut and ran from terrorists, ignored the regulator warnings from Mr Gray starting in 1984 on the S&L crisis that Poppy Bush inherited, etc, etc, etc
> 
> Dem? Look to FDR or Clinton, or OBAMA
> 
> *June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya know, being a babydaddy of three, even if you are supporting them, is not going to confer any credence on your posts. Just thought I'd point that out.
Click to expand...




You are right, the 'credence' in my posts are the FACT that they are based in REALITY, HISTORY  AND TRUTH, something conservatives don't understand!


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzv7MW35xJE
> 
> LOL
> 
> You can't spin the truth FuckWad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL, By thaty 'rational', give the credit to Ike*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine
> 
> The term Eisenhower Doctrine refers to a speech by President Dwight David Eisenhower on 5 January 1957, within a "Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East". Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.
> 
> 
> * Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs love tyrannical government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit*
> 
> Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
> 
> On 9-10 May of this year, the May 14 memorandum explained, Sen. Edward Kennedys close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. (Tunney was Kennedys law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
> 
> Kennedys message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations, the memorandum stated. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.
> 
> *Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
> *
> First he offered to visit Moscow. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes
Click to expand...


*"Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers".*



THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE RIGHT? Seriously? lol

*Ever hear of Google? Try it, TRY to source this right wing MYTH*


Supposedly, 


London Times, titled, "Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file," by Tim Sebastian


*PLEASE GIVE ME A LINK TO THE FILE. NOT the (UN)American TINKER crap*


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzv7MW35xJE
> 
> LOL
> 
> You can't spin the truth FuckWad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL, By thaty 'rational', give the credit to Ike*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine
> 
> The term Eisenhower Doctrine refers to a speech by President Dwight David Eisenhower on 5 January 1957, within a "Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East". Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.
> 
> 
> * Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs love tyrannical government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit*
> 
> Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
> 
> On 9-10 May of this year, the May 14 memorandum explained, Sen. Edward Kennedys close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. (Tunney was Kennedys law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
> 
> Kennedys message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations, the memorandum stated. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.
> 
> Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
> 
> First he offered to visit Moscow. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes
Click to expand...


*But here, I'll give you REALITY based stuff:*

*

*

1 Iran-Contra Affair
2 Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging
3 Lobbying scandal
4 EPA scandals
5 Inslaw Affair
6 Savings & loan crisis
7 Debategate

* "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."*
from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday), as are the examples below: 



James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Edwin Meese III, resigned as Reagan's Attorney General after having been the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions (Wedtech and Iran-Contra), during the 3 short years he was in office.



E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Attorney General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.




Lyn Nofziger  Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal.


Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House.




Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra.  In June 1992 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing from congressional investigators and prosecutors thousands of pages of his handwritten notes. .. *Some of the notes are believed to have evidence against then Vice-President George Bush who pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial.*




Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4. million


Elliott Abrams

Robert C. McFarlane

Oliver North

*John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor,  guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing.*


Richard Secord

Alan D. Fiers

MANY more

Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women in the Taliban?..who knew?
Click to expand...


Someone had to communicate Ronnie's babbling to them...


----------



## Dad2three

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might be a stupid feral baboon, but at least you're a fucking liar...
> 
> The Taliban didn't exist in 1985 - fucktard.
Click to expand...



*The Taliban was one of the Mujahideen factions that formed during the Soviet occupation and the internal fighting in Afghanistan. *The Taliban emerged as a powerful movement in late 1994 when Pakistan chose the Taliban to guard a  convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. 


History of the Taliban


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women in the Taliban?..who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone had to communicate Ronnie's babbling to them...
Click to expand...






> *Northern Alliance- Taliban's fiercest opponent*
> 
> The anti-Taliban alliance comprised of ousted ethnic Tajik president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud and their Jamiat-i-Islami forces, and General Abdul Rashid Dostum and the ethnic Uzbek Junbish-i-Milli party.* Many of the alliance followers were part of the Mujahideen guerillas fighting the Soviets in 1979-1989.*



 - See more at: Northern Alliance- Taliban's fiercest opponent - Hindustan Times


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL, By thaty 'rational', give the credit to Ike*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine
> 
> The term Eisenhower Doctrine refers to a speech by President Dwight David Eisenhower on 5 January 1957, within a "Special Message to the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East". Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state.
> 
> 
> * Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."*
> 
> 
> Eisenhower Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libs love tyrannical government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit*
> 
> Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
> 
> On 9-10 May of this year, the May 14 memorandum explained, Sen. Edward Kennedys close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. (Tunney was Kennedys law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
> 
> Kennedys message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations, the memorandum stated. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.
> 
> Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
> 
> First he offered to visit Moscow. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But here, I'll give you REALITY based stuff:*
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 1 Iran-Contra Affair
> 2 Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging
> 3 Lobbying scandal
> 4 EPA scandals
> 5 Inslaw Affair
> 6 Savings & loan crisis
> 7 Debategate
> 
> * "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."*
> from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday), as are the examples below:
> 
> 
> 
> James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development
> 
> Edwin Meese III, resigned as Reagan's Attorney General after having been the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions (Wedtech and Iran-Contra), during the 3 short years he was in office.
> 
> 
> 
> E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Attorney General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lyn Nofziger  Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal.
> 
> 
> Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra.  In June 1992 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing from congressional investigators and prosecutors thousands of pages of his handwritten notes. .. *Some of the notes are believed to have evidence against then Vice-President George Bush who pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4. million
> 
> 
> Elliott Abrams
> 
> Robert C. McFarlane
> 
> Oliver North
> 
> *John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor,  guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing.*
> 
> 
> Richard Secord
> 
> Alan D. Fiers
> 
> MANY more
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
Click to expand...


LOL really? Those are actually minor things compared to our current poor excuse for a president. and What exactly does that haft to to with the Treason of Ted Kennedy working against an American president in favor of the Soviet union?


----------



## Dad2three

*1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class - *

Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.  Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily



*2. Tripling the National Debt -*

As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.



* Iran/Contra*

 Reagan funded Terrorists 

Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.



*Ignoring AIDS -*

By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.



*Reagan gave amnesty to 4 million Undocumented Immigrants *


His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -

The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women in the Taliban?..who knew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to communicate Ronnie's babbling to them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Northern Alliance- Taliban's fiercest opponent*
> 
> The anti-Taliban alliance comprised of ousted ethnic Tajik president, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud and their Jamiat-i-Islami forces, and General Abdul Rashid Dostum and the ethnic Uzbek Junbish-i-Milli party.* Many of the alliance followers were part of the Mujahideen guerillas fighting the Soviets in 1979-1989.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - See more at: Northern Alliance- Taliban's fiercest opponent - Hindustan Times
Click to expand...


*YOU MEAN THEY HAVE FACTIONAL FIGHTING IN THE ISLAMIST WORLD? *I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Was the Taliban an off shoot of the Mujahideen? yes


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs love tyrannical government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But here, I'll give you REALITY based stuff:*
> 
> *
> 
> *
> 
> 1 Iran-Contra Affair
> 2 Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging
> 3 Lobbying scandal
> 4 EPA scandals
> 5 Inslaw Affair
> 6 Savings & loan crisis
> 7 Debategate
> 
> * "By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."*
> from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday), as are the examples below:
> 
> 
> 
> James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development
> 
> Edwin Meese III, resigned as Reagan's Attorney General after having been the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions (Wedtech and Iran-Contra), during the 3 short years he was in office.
> 
> 
> 
> E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Attorney General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lyn Nofziger  Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal.
> 
> 
> Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra.  In June 1992 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing from congressional investigators and prosecutors thousands of pages of his handwritten notes. .. *Some of the notes are believed to have evidence against then Vice-President George Bush who pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4. million
> 
> 
> Elliott Abrams
> 
> Robert C. McFarlane
> 
> Oliver North
> 
> *John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor,  guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing.*
> 
> 
> Richard Secord
> 
> Alan D. Fiers
> 
> MANY more
> 
> Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL really? Those are actually minor things compared to our current poor excuse for a president. and What exactly does that haft to to with the Treason of Ted Kennedy working against an American president in favor of the Soviet union?
Click to expand...


Minor? lol

I guess dozens of convictions in criminal court is 'minor' in right wing world!

I'll wait for a REAL link to the story on Teddy, not some (UN)American Tinker crap!


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> *1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class - *
> 
> Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.  Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> 
> *2. Tripling the National Debt -*
> 
> As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran/Contra*
> 
> Reagan funded Terrorists
> 
> Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ignoring AIDS -*
> 
> By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan gave amnesty to 4 million Undocumented Immigrants *
> 
> 
> His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -
> 
> The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.




Cut and paste king.. Reagan simplified the tax code, unleased our energy production which help to  pulled people out of poverty. People moved into the middle class, upper class. the Reagan economic boom lasted throughout Clinton administrstion. Thank you Ronald Reagan. I have no doubt you are a hack on the democrat party dole


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class - *
> 
> Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.  Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> 
> *2. Tripling the National Debt -*
> 
> As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran/Contra*
> 
> Reagan funded Terrorists
> 
> Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ignoring AIDS -*
> 
> By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan gave amnesty to 4 million Undocumented Immigrants *
> 
> 
> His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -
> 
> The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cut and paste king.. Reagan simplified the tax code, unleased our energy production which help to  pulled people out of poverty. People moved into the middle class, upper class. the Reagan economic boom lasted throughout Clinton administrstion. Thank you Ronald Reagan. I have no doubt you are a hack on the democrat party dole
Click to expand...




Sure, you probably believe that crap

Reagan 'simplified' it by gutting revenues by giving tax cuts to the rich, that's why he tripled US debt! 


Ronnie gets credit for Clinton's good economy huh? lol... How about the recession Poppy Bush inherited BECAUSE Ronnie ignored regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?


*The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth *


*President Clintons Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing.* Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression.


Strong Economic Growth: *Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years.* The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history. 


*Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years*the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector. 



*Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years*



*Lowest Inflation since the 1960s*



*7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993*



 Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

*President Clintons Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. *The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in Americas history.



* Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000the lowest level since 1966. *



*To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

    Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote*. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. 


*"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."*
 Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994 



"Clintons 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
 Business Week, May 19, 1997 


The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43.  We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world.
> 
> That's what I remember.  That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what happened? you are now consumed with hate...Not too much demand for people like you id imagine
Click to expand...


I explained to you whacks what happened. 

I required an expensive surgery, and my employer decided that despite a fantastic work record (by the time I was let go, I had outlasted nearly everyone who was there when I started) I needed to go.  But he couldn't fire me, so he reorganized the staff putting me in a position that would phase out in a year. "Good thing I don't have to deal with a union." He said. 

That's when I realized that the GOP is very good at looking out for the interests of the rich, but frankly, most of us aren't rich and the rich can take care of themselves. 

Incidently, I did get a new job within two weeks of losing that one, and even managed to weather the 2008 total fuckup of the economy reasonably well. But it will be a cold day in hell before I let some other Plutocratic Tool get my vote again.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh all brown people look alike! Reagan met with darkies, so um, Reagan met bin laden! Yeah!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women in the Taliban?..who knew?
Click to expand...


It's pretty obvious that woman is the translator, and not a Taliban leader.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43.  We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world.
> 
> That's what I remember.  That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what happened? you are now consumed with hate...Not too much demand for people like you id imagine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained to you whacks what happened.
> 
> I required an expensive surgery, and my employer decided that despite a fantastic work record (by the time I was let go, I had outlasted nearly everyone who was there when I started) I needed to go.  But he couldn't fire me, so he reorganized the staff putting me in a position that would phase out in a year. "Good thing I don't have to deal with a union." He said.
> 
> *That's when I realized that the GOP is very good at looking out for the interests of the rich, but frankly, most of us aren't rich and the rich can take care of themselves. *
> 
> Incidently, I did get a new job within two weeks of losing that one, and even managed to weather the 2008 total fuckup of the economy reasonably well. But it will be a cold day in hell before I let some other Plutocratic Tool get my vote again.
Click to expand...



You worked for the GOP?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Kennedy gave the USSR an option to acquire the Democrat Party, they exercised the option during the Clinton Presidency and now they own it outright


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class - *
> 
> Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.  Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> 
> *2. Tripling the National Debt -*
> 
> As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran/Contra*
> 
> Reagan funded Terrorists
> 
> Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ignoring AIDS -*
> 
> By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan gave amnesty to 4 million Undocumented Immigrants *
> 
> 
> His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -
> 
> The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cut and paste king.. Reagan simplified the tax code, unleased our energy production which help to  pulled people out of poverty. People moved into the middle class, upper class. the Reagan economic boom lasted throughout Clinton administrstion. Thank you Ronald Reagan. I have no doubt you are a hack on the democrat party dole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you probably believe that crap
> 
> Reagan 'simplified' it by gutting revenues by giving tax cuts to the rich, that's why he tripled US debt!
> 
> 
> Ronnie gets credit for Clinton's good economy huh? lol... How about the recession Poppy Bush inherited BECAUSE Ronnie ignored regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?
> 
> 
> *The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> *President Clintons Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing.* Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression.
> 
> 
> Strong Economic Growth: *Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years.* The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
> 
> 
> *Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years*the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> *Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> *Lowest Inflation since the 1960s*
> 
> 
> 
> *7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993*
> 
> 
> 
> Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt
> 
> *President Clintons Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. *The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in Americas history.
> 
> 
> 
> * Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000the lowest level since 1966. *
> 
> 
> 
> *To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:
> 
> Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote*. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction.
> 
> 
> *"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."*
>  Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994
> 
> 
> 
> "Clintons 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
>  Business Week, May 19, 1997
> 
> 
> The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
Click to expand...


You made it funny again. Clinton inherited what came before him like the fall of the Soviet union and Reagan's economy and tax reform, also in 94 the Republicans congress swept in and Clinton had to work with them. If not his spending would have went out of control. Hillerycare would have been one of the budget busters. You idiot libs rewriting history. Are you on the Clinton payroll?


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> [
> 
> 
> You worked for the GOP?



I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.  

In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon. 

I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.  

That said, though.  My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in  it. 

It wasn't always this way.  Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.  

But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You worked for the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.
> 
> In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.
> 
> I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.
> 
> That said, though.  My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in  it.
> 
> It wasn't always this way.  Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.
> 
> But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.
Click to expand...


You blamed the GOP for loosing your job.... if figured you worked for them directly in a paid position and they got rid of you.


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it boils down to is that there has never been a Democrat president who has left the country in a better position after he left. Ronald Reagan did.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, if you leave out the FACT that he tripled US debt, took US from a creditor nation to debtor nation, cut taxes on the rich while taxes on the avg worker increased, funded then cut and ran from terrorists, ignored the regulator warnings from Mr Gray starting in 1984 on the S&L crisis that Poppy Bush inherited, etc, etc, etc
> 
> Dem? Look to FDR or Clinton, or OBAMA
> 
> *June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000*
Click to expand...


Please your just pissed that he spent money on the thing he is constitutionally allowed to spend it on...DEFENSE and because of that brought down the evil empire.....I know it must eat you up that people you see as baby killers get paid well for their work. By the way shithead what Reagan spent is a drop in the bucket compared to what your messiah Obama has spent.


----------



## thanatos144

JoeB131 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the main reason for 9-11....He was the one that made inter agency sharing of information impossible he also made intelligence gathering impossible by making it illegal to pay informant that might have committed a crime.....As if you get info of terrorists from a saint. You  sit there and blame Bush for not doing what ? Shut down all travel? When  was he to do that and for how long based on nothing but people saying a terrorist MIGHT at some day hijack a plane?
> 
> Too many of you guys are to young to remember what the world was like BEFORE 9-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before Bush-43.  We had low unemployment, peace, prosperity and were respected in the world.
> 
> That's what I remember.  That and If I didn't like my job, I could send out a resume and get a better one.
Click to expand...


I think you are a lying piece of communist shit so I believe you dont know what the world was like pre 9-11...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Not only do you have to believe that all A-rabs are bin Laden but now add "Reagan gutted revenues" to this list of completely totally wrong things libs are spewing to rewrite the Reagan Legacy


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You worked for the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.
> 
> In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.
> 
> I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.
> 
> That said, though.  My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in  it.
> 
> It wasn't always this way.  Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.
> 
> But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.
Click to expand...

JoeB a pathological lair.

Sure, Joe. Sure. You werrrked sew harrrrd for Republicans. We believe you.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

five farts in a row from the trolls.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"?  How?






Gutted?

Huh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Possible bin Laden sighting


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> JoeB a pathological lair.
> 
> Sure, Joe. Sure. You werrrked sew harrrrd for Republicans. We believe you.



No, guy, I worked hard for my customers and for my co-workers. 

And frankly, Mr. "I think Romney was awesome" was usually more of a hinderance than a help.  

You know the "Pointy-Haired Boss" from Dilbert.  He was THAT guy.  Random Acts of Management.


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gutted?
> 
> Huh?



Got it, GOP's Congress 'report' on Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich


Look at share of GDP income taxes

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

*Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.*

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts.

Once you take out the effects of inflation, you see that for 5 years, all the increase in revenues was solely because of inflation.


*Tax Cuts Do Not Increase Revenue*

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


*Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."
*

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


*The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.*

No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gutted?
> 
> Huh?





*Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue*


The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.


Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues

Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP).  So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. *This happens regardless of the tax rates.


*





Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue.   *The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clintons tax increase on the wealthiest Americans*.  *In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP*.  if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise.  So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?


*Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts*


Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed.  However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserves lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending).  *In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. * *Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).*








In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy.  The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top.  Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.


Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gutted?
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue*
> 
> 
> The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.
> 
> 
> Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues
> 
> Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP).  So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. *This happens regardless of the tax rates.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue
> 
> By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue.   *The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clintons tax increase on the wealthiest Americans*.  *In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP*.  if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise.  So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?
> 
> 
> *Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts*
> 
> 
> Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed.  However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserves lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending).  *In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. * *Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy.  The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top.  Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.
> 
> 
> Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth
Click to expand...


Revenues are generally neutral with tax cuts ...People get to keep more of *their* money, with the same revenue coming in


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You worked for the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.
> 
> In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.
> 
> I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.
> 
> That said, though.  My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in  it.
> 
> It wasn't always this way.  Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.
> 
> But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.
Click to expand...


reagan of course was the first politican to get abortions going as proved earlier in this thread and the reagan nut trolls can only sling shit in defeat like the trolls they are.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

UOTE=Dad2three;9413985]





CrusaderFrank said:


> How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gutted?
> 
> Huh?





*Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue*


The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.


Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues

Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP).  So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. *This happens regardless of the tax rates.


*





Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue

By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue.   *The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clintons tax increase on the wealthiest Americans*.  *In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP*.  if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise.  So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?


*Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts*


Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed.  However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserves lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending).  *In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. * *Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).*








In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy.  The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top.  Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.


Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth






[/QUOTE]

theres reagan laughing at his cousin frank and the other gullible worshippers of him that have been drugged up by the lies of the CIA spun mainstream media.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

as always,you took them to school.


----------



## Jroc

> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.
> 
> President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
> 
> 1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
> 
> 2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan&#8217;s two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  That&#8217;s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
> 
> 3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
> 
> 4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagan&#8217;s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> 
> These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
> 
> During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.




Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gutted?
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue*
> 
> 
> The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.
> 
> 
> Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues
> 
> Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP).  So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. *This happens regardless of the tax rates.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue
> 
> By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue.   *The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clintons tax increase on the wealthiest Americans*.  *In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP*.  if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise.  So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?
> 
> 
> *Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts*
> 
> 
> Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed.  However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserves lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending).  *In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. * *Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy.  The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top.  Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.
> 
> 
> Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revenues are generally neutral with tax cuts ...People get to keep more of *their* money, with the same revenue coming in
Click to expand...


*"Revenues are generally neutral with tax cuts ."*

NO SERIOUS ECONOMISTS THINKS THAT'S TRUE. None. There is a Left and Right of Laffer's Curve. Neither Reagan Nor Dubya were on the right side of it...


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.
> 
> President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
> 
> 1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
> 
> 2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagans two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  Thats a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
> 
> 3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
> 
> 4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagans first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> 
> These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
> 
> During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
Click to expand...




Reagan's Great Recession didn't begin until summer 81... 7 MONTHS after he took office. Obama walked into an economy that had dumped 700,000+ jobs the previous month AND had contracted 9%+. Everything else is right wing CRAP

One of the realities of economics,Bubba is the lag factor.  When one begins with a big hole to fill, it takes time and resources to fill it before you get to start with level ground.


Weird how the right wingers LOVED Reagan blowing up the deficits via his tax cuts for the rich and GREATLY increasing spending (see stimulus effect)....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan with bin Laden


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.

Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.

LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> UOTE=Dad2three;9413985]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you take people seriously who tell you "Reagan gutted revenues"?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gutted?
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue*
> 
> 
> The argument that tax cuts create or increase revenue is an old myth that simply refuses to go away.
> 
> 
> Business Cycles: GDP and Revenues
> 
> Generally speaking, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues grow or shrink along with it ( since the income or earnings being taxed are proportional to GDP).  So while revenues fall when the economy is in a slump or recession, they increase when the economy is in a recovery and certainly during a boom in economic growth. *This happens regardless of the tax rates.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correlating Tax Increases and Decreases with Revenue
> 
> By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue.   *The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clintons tax increase on the wealthiest Americans*.  *In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP*.  if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise.  So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?
> 
> 
> *Reagan Tax Cuts: The Facts*
> 
> 
> Many Reagan apologists claim that these tax cuts created the robust economy that followed.  However this ignores ignores the effects of the Federal Reserves lowering of interest rates. Reagan also increased military spending and ran up the federal deficit (the combined effect of tax cuts and increased spending).  *In other words, Reagan did exactly what Republican pundits who praise him are currently criticizing Obama for. * *Reagan advocates claim his tax cuts bolstered the economy while ignoring the lowered interest rates and increased deficit spending (kind of like an ongoing stimulus package).*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, trickle-down economics (the basis for Reagonomics) is a fallacy.  The wealth does not trickle down but rather t coagulates at the top.  Hence the applicability of this mocking of Reaganomics.
> 
> 
> Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Bush Tax Cuts & Reagan Tax Cuts - Facts | Fact and Myth
Click to expand...


theres reagan laughing at his cousin frank and the other gullible worshippers of him that have been drugged up by the lies of the CIA spun mainstream media.[/QUOTE]

^ Works for HW Bush


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.
> 
> Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.
> 
> LOL



Why is Eastern Europe our problem? 

Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)

Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency






Reagan and bin Laden


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.
> 
> Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Eastern Europe our problem?
> 
> Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.
Click to expand...


Ahh Joe, it sucks for you that Reagan demolished the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from the dehumanizing oppression you want to bring here.

Sucks to be you. It really does.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You worked for the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.
> 
> In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.
> 
> I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.
> 
> That said, though.  My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in  it.
> 
> It wasn't always this way.  Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.
> 
> But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> reagan of course was the first politican to get abortions going as proved earlier in this thread and the reagan nut trolls can only sling shit in defeat like the trolls they are.
Click to expand...


HW Bush's personal disinformation troll doesn't know Roe v Wade was decided in 1973

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.
> 
> Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.
> 
> LOL



Weird you can't grasp business cycles


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden




*The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.*

*This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. **Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. *Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.



No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.
> 
> Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you can't grasp business cycles
Click to expand...

Yeah, after 70 years the business cycle would have swung for the first time to communism.

If only they had had more time!


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.
> 
> Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Eastern Europe our problem?
> 
> Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh Joe, it sucks for you that Reagan demolished the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from the dehumanizing oppression you want to bring here.
> 
> Sucks to be you. It really does.
Click to expand...


*PLEASE, Please make up your mind? Is communism a failed ideology or did Ronnie cause it to crash? *


Did Reagan end the Cold War? *Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of &#8220;Containment&#8221; by eight U.S. presidents. *As Tony Judt&#8217;s Postwar concluded: &#8220;&#8230;Washington did not &#8216;bring down&#8217; Communism &#8211; Communism imploded of its own accord.&#8221; I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process. 



Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.
> 
> Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you can't grasp business cycles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, after 70 years the business cycle would have swung for the first time to communism.
> 
> If only they had had more time!
Click to expand...



So you want to conflate Reagan's economy with Europe. Ok, And?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, don't believe the actual, broad economic growth that occurred under Reagan, follow some cartoon instead.
> 
> Don't believe the people from Eastern Europe who admire Reagan for freeing them from Communism, listen to the little Commie Wannbes.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird you can't grasp business cycles
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's the problem. My complete inability to accept your bullshit


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked on Republican Campaigns in 1980, 1984, 1998, 2004 and 2006.
> 
> In fact, the only time I voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was in 2012, and that was because I don't trust the Mormon Church and would never support a Mormon.
> 
> I did vote for McCain in 2008, because I felt he was more qualified and he was probably the last chance the GOP had to keep the crazies from taking over.
> 
> That said, though.  My experience at my previous job, where my boss who thought Romney was the best thing since sliced bread because he'd make life better for people like him, told me that while neither party really has my back, the Republicans are the ones trying to stick knives in  it.
> 
> It wasn't always this way.  Ike, Nixon and I would even argue Reagan, understood there needed to be a balance between the interests of working folks and business.
> 
> But the GOP has become rich people manipulating working folks by playing on issues like Abortion, Guns, gays and other stuff the rich don't care about, but are happy to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reagan of course was the first politican to get abortions going as proved earlier in this thread and the reagan nut trolls can only sling shit in defeat like the trolls they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HW Bush's personal disinformation troll doesn't know Roe v Wade was decided in 1973
> 
> Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


*As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state's abortion laws that "resulted in more than a million abortions." When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he "never seriously pursued" curbing choice.*

Ten reasons why Ronald Reagan would be persona non grata at CPAC 2013


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.*
> 
> *This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. **Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. *Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
Click to expand...


You can tell the other side is crushed and defeated when they're making up phony, irrelevant metrics to prove their "point"

The point of the Reagan tax cuts was to STIMULATE THE US ECONOMY!!!  It was not to stimulate government collections

Progs (Commie Wannabes) labor under the delusion that the Federal Government and US economy are one in the same


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Eastern Europe our problem?
> 
> Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh Joe, it sucks for you that Reagan demolished the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from the dehumanizing oppression you want to bring here.
> 
> Sucks to be you. It really does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *PLEASE, Please make up your mind? Is communism a failed ideology or did Ronnie cause it to crash? *
> 
> They are certainly not mutually exclusive. It is a failed ideology, but Reagan shaved a couple of decades from the inevitable.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.*
> 
> *This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. **Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. *Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can tell the other side is crushed and defeated when they're making up phony, irrelevant metrics to prove their "point"
> 
> The point of the Reagan tax cuts was to STIMULATE THE US ECONOMY!!!  It was not to stimulate government collections
> 
> Progs (Commie Wannabes) labor under the delusion that the Federal Government and US economy are one in the same
Click to expand...




YOUR premise

*'lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts '*


*Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Eastern Europe our problem?
> 
> Frankly, I could care less what happens to the EuroTrash, I'd just like to get back the middle class in this country Reagan gutted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh Joe, it sucks for you that Reagan demolished the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from the dehumanizing oppression you want to bring here.
> 
> Sucks to be you. It really does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *PLEASE, Please make up your mind? Is communism a failed ideology or did Ronnie cause it to crash? *
> 
> 
> Did Reagan end the Cold War? *Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents. *As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord. I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


Ronnie's "To Do" List

1. Revitalize the US Economy through robust tax cuts
2. Defeat the USSR, consigning it to the ash heap of history

Fuck what "historians" say, they got it wrong in 1983 when they criticized Reagan for calling the USSR an Evil empire and they've been consistently wrong ever since


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.*
> 
> *This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. **Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. *Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell the other side is crushed and defeated when they're making up phony, irrelevant metrics to prove their "point"
> 
> The point of the Reagan tax cuts was to STIMULATE THE US ECONOMY!!!  It was not to stimulate government collections
> 
> Progs (Commie Wannabes) labor under the delusion that the Federal Government and US economy are one in the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR premise
> 
> *'lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts '*
> 
> 
> *Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue*
Click to expand...







Wrong again


----------



## Meathead

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> reagan of course was the first politican to get abortions going as proved earlier in this thread and the reagan nut trolls can only sling shit in defeat like the trolls they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HW Bush's personal disinformation troll doesn't know Roe v Wade was decided in 1973
> 
> Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state's abortion laws that "resulted in more than a million abortions." When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he "never seriously pursued" curbing choice.*
> 
> Ten reasons why Ronald Reagan would be persona non grata at CPAC 2013
Click to expand...

He was great!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh Joe, it sucks for you that Reagan demolished the Soviet empire and freed Eastern Europe from the dehumanizing oppression you want to bring here.
> 
> Sucks to be you. It really does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PLEASE, Please make up your mind? Is communism a failed ideology or did Ronnie cause it to crash? *
> 
> 
> Did Reagan end the Cold War? *Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents. *As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord. I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronnie's "To Do" List
> 
> 1. Revitalize the US Economy through robust tax cuts
> 2. Defeat the USSR, consigning it to the ash heap of history
> 
> Fuck what "historians" say, they got it wrong in 1983 when they criticized Reagan for calling the USSR an Evil empire and they've been consistently wrong ever since
Click to expand...


Got it, You'll stick with myths and fairy tales


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism



People of Eastern Europe will mostly be polite when you mention the delusion that Reagan brought down the USSR. Some of them will be insulted at your ignorance however. But would would they know. They only live there and lived through the revolution.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=I2SvhDY23So]Soviet troops vs unarmed Lithuanian civilians, Vilnius 1991. - YouTube[/ame]

http://youtube.com/watch/?v=1y4wLPgTxwk

Riga, Latvia battle in the streets with USSR occupation troops.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)



Except that didn't happen.  The national Debt was less than trillion when Reagan took office and was up to 3 trillion when he left.  He left more debt than his 39 predecessors combined with two world wars and a dozen smaller ones. 

NO, the government did double receipts, AFTER the Tax Reform of 1986 where Reagan had to admit that the Laffer Curve really was voodoo economics. 




CrusaderFrank said:


> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden



Well, hard to say.  Frankly, given a choice between Jihadists that Reagan armed and the communists, we were probably safer with the communists.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism



Half those countries have voted the Communists back into power, albeit under other names.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People of Eastern Europe will mostly be polite when you mention the delusion that Reagan brought down the USSR. Some of them will be insulted at your ignorance however. But would would they know. They only live there and lived through the revolution.
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=I2SvhDY23So]Soviet troops vs unarmed Lithuanian civilians, Vilnius 1991. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch/?v=1y4wLPgTxwk
> 
> Riga, Latvia battle in the streets with USSR occupation troops.
Click to expand...

The Russian expats I've met say American liberals are the stupidest people on the planet and I think they were being kind. Accurate, but kind

You think socialism and redistribution is cool only because you never lived with true hardships they cause


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that didn't happen.  The national Debt was less than trillion when Reagan took office and was up to 3 trillion when he left.  He left more debt than his 39 predecessors combined with two world wars and a dozen smaller ones.
> 
> NO, the government did double receipts, AFTER the Tax Reform of 1986 where Reagan had to admit that the Laffer Curve really was voodoo economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hard to say.  Frankly, given a choice between Jihadists that Reagan armed and the communists, we were probably safer with the communists.
Click to expand...

Like I said Joe it sucks to be you. Reagan never had a Republican congress he had to work with dems and they lied about cutting spending.

Also your boy Obama has one year deficits that eclipse all 8 of Reagans


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People of Eastern Europe will mostly be polite when you mention the delusion that Reagan brought down the USSR. Some of them will be insulted at your ignorance however. But would would they know. They only live there and lived through the revolution.
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=I2SvhDY23So]Soviet troops vs unarmed Lithuanian civilians, Vilnius 1991. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Soviet police specnaz on rampage in Riga, Latvia, 1991. - YouTube
> 
> Riga, Latvia battle in the streets with USSR occupation troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Russian expats I've met say American liberals are the stupidest people on the planet and I think they were being kind. Accurate, but kind
> 
> You think socialism and redistribution is cool only because you never lived with true hardships they cause
Click to expand...


Ya, well, you were talking about Eastern Europeans. Russians are a different story. If you want to talk about them we can. They are not the same.

Azerbaijan's road to Independence - YouTube


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half those countries have voted the Communists back into power, albeit under other names.
Click to expand...

But they voted. You hate that don't you.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half those countries have voted the Communists back into power, albeit under other names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they voted. You hate that don't you.
Click to expand...


What ever they have done, they don't give the credit to Reagan the way you do for having the privilege to do it. They give far more credit to there own efforts, which included dying in the streets during violent protest and the threat of a unified violent revolution of all the eastern European nations against the USSR in a coordinated and organized effort.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice not a trace of joy from the Progs (Commie Wannabes) over Eastern Europe being liberated from Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Half those countries have voted the Communists back into power, albeit under other names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they voted. You hate that don't you.
Click to expand...


NO, I just don't see how that was my problem or why we needed to bankrupt this country and wreck the middle class so a few Eurotrash could vote.


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
> 
> All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.
> 
> President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
> 
> 1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
> 
> 2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagans two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  Thats a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
> 
> 3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
> 
> 4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagans first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
> 
> These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
> 
> During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan's Great Recession didn't begin until summer 81... 7 MONTHS after he took office*. Obama walked into an economy that had dumped 700,000+ jobs the previous month AND had contracted 9%+. Everything else is right wing CRAP
> 
> One of the realities of economics,Bubba is the lag factor.  When one begins with a big hole to fill, it takes time and resources to fill it before you get to start with level ground.
> 
> 
> Weird how the right wingers LOVED Reagan blowing up the deficits via his tax cuts for the rich and GREATLY increasing spending (see stimulus effect)....
Click to expand...


Reagan's? Carter's recession....get it straight and the numbers don't lie


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that didn't happen.  The national Debt was less than trillion when Reagan took office and was up to 3 trillion when he left.  He left more debt than his 39 predecessors combined with two world wars and a dozen smaller ones.
> 
> NO, the government did double receipts, AFTER the Tax Reform of 1986 where Reagan had to admit that the Laffer Curve really was voodoo economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, hard to say.  Frankly, given a choice between Jihadists that Reagan armed and the communists, we were probably safer with the communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said Joe it sucks to be you. Reagan never had a Republican congress he had to work with dems and they lied about cutting spending.
> 
> Also your boy Obama has one year deficits that eclipse all 8 of Reagans
Click to expand...




The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts

The Facts

* Despite Reagans claim that he made a deal with the Democrats, the Senate at the time was controlled by Republicans. *Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas  then chairman of the Finance Committee and later the majority leader and Republican nominee for president  was a driving force behind a big tax increase because he was concerned about soaring deficits after Reagan had boosted defense spending and slashed taxes.

*Dole warned the White House that the final year of Reagans three-year tax cut was at risk unless revenue could be raised in other ways. *Under Doles leadership, the Senate Finance Committee led the way in crafting a big tax bill, fending off efforts by Democrats to halt Reagans tax cut.....


The Pinocchio Test

 It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. *In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.*

If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.


The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts - The Washington Post


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan's Great Recession didn't begin until summer 81... 7 MONTHS after he took office*. Obama walked into an economy that had dumped 700,000+ jobs the previous month AND had contracted 9%+. Everything else is right wing CRAP
> 
> One of the realities of economics,Bubba is the lag factor.  When one begins with a big hole to fill, it takes time and resources to fill it before you get to start with level ground.
> 
> 
> Weird how the right wingers LOVED Reagan blowing up the deficits via his tax cuts for the rich and GREATLY increasing spending (see stimulus effect)....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan's? Carter's recession....get it straight and the numbers don't lie
Click to expand...


According to the accepted arbiter of the economys ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980  lasting only six months  and a short period of growth, were* followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. *The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. *The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987*

Reagan?s Recession | Pew Research Center


----------



## Jroc

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan's Great Recession didn't begin until summer 81... 7 MONTHS after he took office*. Obama walked into an economy that had dumped 700,000+ jobs the previous month AND had contracted 9%+. Everything else is right wing CRAP
> 
> One of the realities of economics,Bubba is the lag factor.  When one begins with a big hole to fill, it takes time and resources to fill it before you get to start with level ground.
> 
> 
> Weird how the right wingers LOVED Reagan blowing up the deficits via his tax cuts for the rich and GREATLY increasing spending (see stimulus effect)....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's? Carter's recession....get it straight and the numbers don't lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the accepted arbiter of the economy&#8217;s ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980 &#8212; lasting only six months &#8212; and a short period of growth, were* followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. *The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. *The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987*
> 
> Reagan?s Recession | Pew Research Center
Click to expand...


Reagan's' tax reform wasn't even fully implemented until 1983. It had to be that way to get through the Democrat congress. The Carter recession hack, you revisionist nut jobs are laughable


----------



## Jroc

> *Reagan's policy was to cut individual and corporate tax rates sharply, and to restrain the growth in government spending and regulation. The Democrats, who were in control of the House, resisted and delayed the Reagan tax cuts, so they were not fully implemented until 1983. Obama had the luxury of having his party in control of both houses of Congress, so he was able to get his proposed, massive government spending increases enacted almost immediately.*
> 
> When Reagan left office in January 1989, he had presided over "seven fat years," as Bob Bartley, the now-deceased editor of The Wall Street Journal, called the Reagan era. Unemployment was half of its recession high, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent after the recession bottom in 1982, the deficit was falling and was under a very manageable 3 percent of gross domestic product, the GDP-debt ratio was falling, inflation had dropped by about two-thirds, and every American individual and company had seen very sharp reductions in their marginal tax rates &#8212; the maximum rate fell from 70 percent to only 28 percent by the time Reagan left office.
> Keynesian economics, practiced during the late 1960s and 1970s, became thoroughly discredited with the stagflation of the 1970s &#8212; which, in theory, was impossible under the old model &#8212; and the subsequent Reagan supply-side boom.
> 
> The Clinton administration, after its so-so economic performance in the first term with small increases in tax rates and government spending, partially reverted to Reaganomics in its second term; with a capital-gains rate cut and reductions in spending as a percentage of GDP. The result was very strong economic growth and budget surpluses



Obama?s Economics Failing Under Keynesian Policies


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half those countries have voted the Communists back into power, albeit under other names.
> 
> 
> 
> But they voted. You hate that don't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ever they have done, they don't give the credit to Reagan the way you do for having the privilege to do it. They give far more credit to there own efforts, which included dying in the streets during violent protest and the threat of a unified violent revolution of all the eastern European nations against the USSR in a coordinated and organized effort.
Click to expand...


Their own efforts got them crushed by your Soviet Masters whenever they tried to throw off the yolk of Communism. Reagan was the one and only US President who made the liberation of Eastern Europe one of the main goals of his Presidency. It was no coincidence that they collapsed right after Reagan's term ended

I said it before expats I speak with credit Reagan and say you're a moron and they're right on both counts


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half those countries have voted the Communists back into power, albeit under other names.
> 
> 
> 
> But they voted. You hate that don't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I just don't see how that was my problem or why we needed to bankrupt this country and wreck the middle class so a few Eurotrash could vote.
Click to expand...


The country didn't go bankrupt Fool.


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan's? Carter's recession....get it straight and the numbers don't lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the accepted arbiter of the economys ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980  lasting only six months  and a short period of growth, were* followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. *The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. *The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987*
> 
> Reagan?s Recession | Pew Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan's' tax reform wasn't even fully implemented until 1983. It had to be that way to get through the Democrat congress. The Carter recession hack, you revisionist nut jobs are laughable
Click to expand...



You mean Ronnie cutting the top rate from 70% to 50% didn't work? Shocking


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they voted. You hate that don't you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I just don't see how that was my problem or why we needed to bankrupt this country and wreck the middle class so a few Eurotrash could vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country didn't go bankrupt Fool.
Click to expand...



David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.


The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Partys embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits dont matter if they result from tax cuts.

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems. 

David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they voted. You hate that don't you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever they have done, they don't give the credit to Reagan the way you do for having the privilege to do it. They give far more credit to there own efforts, which included dying in the streets during violent protest and the threat of a unified violent revolution of all the eastern European nations against the USSR in a coordinated and organized effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their own efforts got them crushed by your Soviet Masters whenever they tried to throw off the yolk of Communism. Reagan was the one and only US President who made the liberation of Eastern Europe one of the main goals of his Presidency. It was no coincidence that they collapsed right after Reagan's term ended
> 
> I said it before expats I speak with credit Reagan and say you're a moron and they're right on both counts
Click to expand...




"*The most important cause of the fall of the Soviet Union by far was its failed, unsustainable political and economic system*, which would have eventually collapsed regardless of American policy. (It's interesting that conservatives' mania for crediting Reagan with the fall of the USSR has required them to downplay the inherent faults of communism, which you'd think they'd naturally emphasize.) "


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ever they have done, they don't give the credit to Reagan the way you do for having the privilege to do it. They give far more credit to there own efforts, which included dying in the streets during violent protest and the threat of a unified violent revolution of all the eastern European nations against the USSR in a coordinated and organized effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their own efforts got them crushed by your Soviet Masters whenever they tried to throw off the yolk of Communism. Reagan was the one and only US President who made the liberation of Eastern Europe one of the main goals of his Presidency. It was no coincidence that they collapsed right after Reagan's term ended
> 
> I said it before expats I speak with credit Reagan and say you're a moron and they're right on both counts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The most important cause of the fall of the Soviet Union by far was its failed, unsustainable political and economic system*, which would have eventually collapsed regardless of American policy. (It's interesting that conservatives' mania for crediting Reagan with the fall of the USSR has required them to downplay the inherent faults of communism, which you'd think they'd naturally emphasize.) "
Click to expand...

How old are you?????? 20's? Because only a  young idiot believe such bullshit.


----------



## Dad2three

Jroc said:


> *Reagan's policy was to cut individual and corporate tax rates sharply, and to restrain the growth in government spending and regulation. The Democrats, who were in control of the House, resisted and delayed the Reagan tax cuts, so they were not fully implemented until 1983. Obama had the luxury of having his party in control of both houses of Congress, so he was able to get his proposed, massive government spending increases enacted almost immediately.*
> 
> When Reagan left office in January 1989, he had presided over "seven fat years," as Bob Bartley, the now-deceased editor of The Wall Street Journal, called the Reagan era. Unemployment was half of its recession high, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent after the recession bottom in 1982, the deficit was falling and was under a very manageable 3 percent of gross domestic product, the GDP-debt ratio was falling, inflation had dropped by about two-thirds, and every American individual and company had seen very sharp reductions in their marginal tax rates  the maximum rate fell from 70 percent to only 28 percent by the time Reagan left office.
> Keynesian economics, practiced during the late 1960s and 1970s, became thoroughly discredited with the stagflation of the 1970s  which, in theory, was impossible under the old model  and the subsequent Reagan supply-side boom.
> 
> The Clinton administration, after its so-so economic performance in the first term with small increases in tax rates and government spending, partially reverted to Reaganomics in its second term; with a capital-gains rate cut and reductions in spending as a percentage of GDP. The result was very strong economic growth and budget surpluses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama?s Economics Failing Under Keynesian Policies
Click to expand...




2010 huh? lol


Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record

*June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record*, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. *In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.
*


Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their own efforts got them crushed by your Soviet Masters whenever they tried to throw off the yolk of Communism. Reagan was the one and only US President who made the liberation of Eastern Europe one of the main goals of his Presidency. It was no coincidence that they collapsed right after Reagan's term ended
> 
> I said it before expats I speak with credit Reagan and say you're a moron and they're right on both counts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The most important cause of the fall of the Soviet Union by far was its failed, unsustainable political and economic system*, which would have eventually collapsed regardless of American policy. (It's interesting that conservatives' mania for crediting Reagan with the fall of the USSR has required them to downplay the inherent faults of communism, which you'd think they'd naturally emphasize.) "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old are you?????? 20's? Because only a  young idiot believe such bullshit.
Click to expand...




Got it, you prefer the MYTH conservatives have created about Ronnie


* The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan *


...*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. *Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord. I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process. 


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## thanatos144

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*The most important cause of the fall of the Soviet Union by far was its failed, unsustainable political and economic system*, which would have eventually collapsed regardless of American policy. (It's interesting that conservatives' mania for crediting Reagan with the fall of the USSR has required them to downplay the inherent faults of communism, which you'd think they'd naturally emphasize.) "
> 
> 
> 
> How old are you?????? 20's? Because only a  young idiot believe such bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you prefer the MYTH conservatives have created about Ronnie
> 
> 
> * The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan *
> 
> 
> ...*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. *Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord. I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


Unlike you idiot I was alive during this time.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they voted. You hate that don't you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever they have done, they don't give the credit to Reagan the way you do for having the privilege to do it. They give far more credit to there own efforts, which included dying in the streets during violent protest and the threat of a unified violent revolution of all the eastern European nations against the USSR in a coordinated and organized effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their own efforts got them crushed by your Soviet Masters whenever they tried to throw off the yolk of Communism. Reagan was the one and only US President who made the liberation of Eastern Europe one of the main goals of his Presidency. It was no coincidence that they collapsed right after Reagan's term ended
> 
> I said it before expats I speak with credit Reagan and say you're a moron and they're right on both counts
Click to expand...


First, the attempts to throw off the yolk of communism you speak of were rare and not coordinated. They were independent of other countries efforts. They do not compare to the coordinated uprisings of eastern Europe that began to occur long after Reagan was out of office and who had no influence whatsoever. Nor do you give a bit of credit to the Pope who was instrumental in bringing about that coordination. A rare uprising in Praha or Budapest is not the same as the wack a mole demonstrations occurring in 1990 and 1991.
I don't care how many Russian expats you have talked to. You will never get to talk to as many as often as I do, and they can not be stereotyped they way you would like. In addition, expats are expats. How many times have you been to Russia? How many Russian citizens do you know and talk to on a regular basis? We won't even mention eastern Europe.


----------



## Meathead

I know this will be hard for some of our more vacuous contributors, but most would choose to take the word of someone who risked life and limb on the front line. Lech Walesa is one such person:

*When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.

Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.

I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.*

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB108691034152234672

The man was a giant, and only midgets object.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I just don't see how that was my problem or why we needed to bankrupt this country and wreck the middle class so a few Eurotrash could vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country didn't go bankrupt Fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.
> 
> 
> The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Partys embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits dont matter if they result from tax cuts.
> 
> Cue the FoxNews denunciations.
> 
> David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems.
> 
> David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...


Stockman is a fucking retard.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

two farts in a row from the agent trolls.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*The most important cause of the fall of the Soviet Union by far was its failed, unsustainable political and economic system*, which would have eventually collapsed regardless of American policy. (It's interesting that conservatives' mania for crediting Reagan with the fall of the USSR has required them to downplay the inherent faults of communism, which you'd think they'd naturally emphasize.) "
> 
> 
> 
> How old are you?????? 20's? Because only a  young idiot believe such bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you prefer the MYTH conservatives have created about Ronnie
> 
> 
> * The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan *
> 
> 
> ...*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. *Historians mostly credit forty years of &#8220;Containment&#8221; by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt&#8217;s Postwar concluded: &#8220;&#8230;Washington did not &#8216;bring down&#8217; Communism &#8211; Communism imploded of its own accord.&#8221; I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


Crusader Retard and his bandwagon of reaganut zombies he leads to follow him,also ignore the facts that reagan got into office long before Gorbachev did and spoke early in his administration of getting rid of commuism but steps were never even taken to reform the country till AFTER Gorbachev came into power and ignoring that polls back then,most credited gorbachev with the reform of the soviet union. and that even his pal dick nixon said Reagan had nothing to do with it.

crusader retard sure gets paid well for his constant ass beatings he gets here everyday. only a young idiot would believe his ramblings and lies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan took a lot of people in his Administration only because the RNC made him. First was his scumbag VP (9/11's Boss) and second was Stockman whom Reagan admonished for being a fucking liar


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Here is the truth on what caused the collapse of the soviet union.Notice how not one word of reagan is mentioned?

The Collapse of the Soviet Union | HistoryOrb.com


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Notice how big and bold the Progressive lie? When they did this with FDR's horrific economic record, McCarthy understating the extend to which the FDR White House was a Soviet Satellite and LBJ's racism, they got away with it because no one was there to challenge them.

Here they are lying in broad daylight and we're challenging them and all they can do is lie more and more frequently


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.



^ Someone is a 6 year old


----------



## LA RAM FAN

at 3:29 and 3:30 pm today,someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Here is also the REAL Ronald Reagan exposed.

Reagan | Democrats.com


and they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are led by their cheerleading reagan cousin worshipper Crusader Retard.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Here is also the REAL Ronald Reagan exposed.
> 
> Reagan | Democrats.com
> 
> 
> and they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are led by their cheerleading reagan cousin worshipper Crusader Retard.



this part in my link REALLY hit the nail right on the head.Reagan being senile as he was,actully came close to getting us into world war 3 with the russians because of his stupidity.If Not for Gorbechev being the peaceseeker he was and russia had a maniac in power at the time,Reagan would have achived that.


Which brings us to myth number two: 
Jimmy Carter wrecked the economy, and Reagan's bold tax cuts saved it.
        This is utterly absurd.  Economic growth indices -- GDP, jobs, revenues -- were all positive when Carter left office.  All plunged after Reagan policies took effect.
        Reagan didn't cure inflation, the main economic problem during the Carter years.  Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker tried when he raised interest rates.  That's the opposite of what Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has done to keep inflation low.
        Carter's policies and people fought inflation, but maintained real growth.  On the other hand, Reagan's policies helped cause the worst recession since the Great Depression: two bleak years with nearly double-digit unemployment! Reaganomics failed in less than a year, and it took an entire second year for the economy to recover from the failure.
        Carter didn't cause the inflation problem, but his tough policies and smart personnel solved it.  Unfortunately for Carter, it took too long for the good results to kick in.  Not only didn't Reagan help whip inflation, he actually opposed the Volcker policies!
        Another major myth: 
Reagan cut taxes on all Americans, and that led to a great expansion.
        Here's the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before.  The "Reagan Recovery" was unremarkable.  It looks great only contrasted against the dismal Reagan Recession -- but it had nothing to do with Supply Side voodoo.
        With a red ink explosion -- $300 BILLION deficits looming as far as the eye could see -- GOP Senators, notably including Bob Dole, led the way on tax hikes.  The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases larger than the total tax cuts were implemented.  Most importantly, average annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton 90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!
        Enough about the economy.  Here's the biggest myth of them all:
Ronald Reagan won the "Cold War".
        In reality, Reagan did nothing to bring down the Soviet Union.
        By 1980, the Soviet Union was trying to cut its own defense spending.  Reagan made it harder for them to do so.  In fact, Reagan increased the possibility of a nuclear war because he was -- frankly, and sadly -- senile.  He thought we could actually recall submarine-launched nuclear missiles (talk about a Reagan myth), and bullied the Soviets to highest alert several times.
        Critically, Reagan never even tried to bring down the Soviet Union.
        Wasteful overspending on defense didn't end the Soviet Union.  In fact, it played into the hands of authoritarian "Communist" hard-liners in the Kremlin.  Reagan thought the Soviet Union was more powerful than we were.  He was trying to close what he called "the window of vulnerability."
        This was sheer idiocy.
        No general in our military would trade our armed forces for theirs.  If it were to happen, none of the Soviet military command would turn down that deal.  We had better systems, better troops, and better morale.
        Here's the truth: we'd already won the Cold War before Reagan took office.  All Reagan needed to do was continue the tried-and-true containment policies Harry S. Truman began and all subsequent presidents employed.  The Soviet Union was Collapsing from within.  The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he took office.
        Here's an example: the Soviet Union military couldn't deal with a weak state on its own border, the poor, undermanned Afghanistan.  Most of the Soviets' military might had to make sure its "allies" in the Warsaw Pact and subjects along the South Asian front didn't revolt.  Even Richard Nixon told Reagan he could balance the budget with big defense cuts.
        Reagan ignored this, and wrecked our budget.
        We didn't have to increase weapons spending, but Reagan didn't care.  He ran away from summits with the dying old-guard Soviets, and the new-style "glasnost" leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev baffled the witless Reagan and his closed-minded extremist advisors.
        Maggie Thatcher finally cajoled the Gipper into meeting Gorby, and Gorby cleaned Reagan's clock.  Reagan's hard-right "handlers" nearly had to drag Reagan out of the room before he signed away our entire nuclear deterrent.  Reagan -- and the planet -- was lucky Gorbachev sought genuine and stable peace.  Had Yuri Andropov's health held, Reagan's "jokes" and gaffes might have caused World War III.
        Eventually Reagan even gave Gorbachev his seal of approval.  Visiting Moscow before the August Coup, Reagan said the Soviet Union was no longer the "Evil Empire." He predicted his friend Gorbachev would lead the Soviet Union for many years to come.
        As usual, Reagan was wrong.  A few months later, disgruntled military officers kidnapped Gorbachev, throwing him out of power forever.  Reagan remained disengaged: nothing he did caused the coup, and nothing he did made the Soviet military support Boris Yeltsin over their superiors.
        We're all fortunate things happened as they did -- but once again, Reagan did nothing to make this fluke more likely.
        All this is vintage Reagan.  Reagan took credit for others' hard word and hard choices, and blamed them for his failures.  Reagan even blamed Jimmy Carter for Reagan's foolish, fatal, and reckless decision to leave 243 Marines stationed in Beirut, helpless and unguarded.
        Reagan hired over 100 crooks to run our government, and broke several laws himself.  His policies were almost uniformly self-defeating, wrong-headed, immoral and unfair. 
        Reagan was an actor playing the part of the president.  He was style over substance; lucky, not good.
        And once the myths are stripped from the "legacy", the truth becomes obvious: 
        Reagan was by far the most overrated man in American history.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Reagan was by far the most overrated man in American history. 
__________________
damn straight.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Reagan entered office in 1981 with a short "to do" list

1. Let US Businesses get back to work
2. Crush the USSR

By the time he left we were in the middle of the largest and longest peacetime economic expansion in history and the USSR was finished

People have been lying about his results and that's their problem


----------



## CrusaderFrank

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]

Anyone notice Gorby there?

Me neither


----------



## LA RAM FAN

at 3:53 and 3:55 pm today someone farted in here.

His handlers sure are getting worried the truth about reagan is being exposed the way they keep sending him here IMMEDIATELY after i get the truth out about reagans corruption,how he shits all over the floor so quickly in each post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

still more of the REAL ronald reagan exposed.

Ronald Reagan applied to join the American Communist Party - Political Conspiracies - The Education Forum


----------



## LA RAM FAN

HA HA HA HA HA OH YEAH BIG JOKE....to be fair.
FAIR ???????????? FAIR ??????????? SON OF A BEECH !!!!!!!!!!

"Reagan Was the Butcher of My People:" Fr. Miguel D&#8217;Escoto Speaks From Nicaragua

http://www.democracy...e_butcher_of_my

We go to Managua, Nicaragua to speak with Fr. Miguel D&#8217;Escoto, a Catholic priest who was Nicaragua&#8217;s Foreign Minister under the Sandinista government in the 1980s. [Includes transcript]
The 8 years Reagan was in office represented one of the most bloody eras in the history of the Western hemisphere, as Washington funneled money, weapons and other supplies to right wing death squads. And the death toll was staggering&#8211;more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 killed in the contra war in Nicaragua. In Washington, the forces carrying out the violence were called "freedom fighters." This is how Ronald Reagan described the Contras in Nicaragua: "They are our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers."
&#8226;Fr. Miguel D&#8217;Escoto, a Catholic priest based in Managua, Nicaragua. He was Nicaragua&#8217;s Foreign Minister under the Sandinista government in the 1980s.
#################
#################
#################

When what is called the Hollywood movie system ended,the TV was becoming bigger.
Old movies to TV was going to be big money with residuals,BUT NO !! As president of Screen Actors guild ,he sold out his own fellow actors getting near zero for RESIDUALS. BUT HE GOT TV DEAL via MOB with GE.
+++++++++
 SEE AT 4:50 Reagan has a history to forget under oath .....gee remind u of IRAN CONTRA ??

The great Ronald reagan


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Communist complaining about Reagan!

ZOMG!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

This thread provides all the proof you ever need that Progressives are pathological lairs.

They say Reagan damaged the Great Carter Economy and Gorby decided to dismantle the USSR.

It's the complete opposite of the truth.

Have to give them credit for being so brazen and just not caring that they're lying


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> This thread provides all the proof you ever need that Progressives are pathological lairs.
> 
> They say Reagan damaged the Great Carter Economy and Gorby decided to dismantle the USSR.
> 
> It's the complete opposite of the truth.
> 
> Have to give them credit for being so brazen and just not caring that they're lying



Except no one said either of these things... 

Reagan destroyed the middle class which had long preceded Carter, and even Republicans used to think was a good idea.  Eisenhower and Nixon got it.  A strong unionized middle class was the backbone of the American economy, and it was more important than one recession.  

Nor do we think that Gorby dismantled the USSR.  We're just pragmatic enough to realize the USSR did not fall because Reagan talked to a wall, or because he armed some crazy jihadists in Afghanistan. 

The USSR fell for the same reason that British Empire fell.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan entered office in 1981 with a short "to do" list
> 
> 1. Let US Businesses get back to work
> 2. Crush the USSR
> 
> By the time he left we were in the middle of the largest and longest peacetime economic expansion in history and the USSR was finished
> 
> People have been lying about his results and that's their problem



Unfortunately, he didn't accomplish either. 

Manufacturing jobs declined under Reagan. Oh, he tried to stem the tide by imposing some limits on the Japanese, but the fact is, Reagan stood their impotently while factories shuttered their doors. 

As for the USSR, the thing was, we never saw that coming. Years of being afraid of "The Evil Empire", we discovered they were a collection of third world countries that didn't really like each other that much.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread provides all the proof you ever need that Progressives are pathological lairs.
> 
> They say Reagan damaged the Great Carter Economy and Gorby decided to dismantle the USSR.
> 
> It's the complete opposite of the truth.
> 
> Have to give them credit for being so brazen and just not caring that they're lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one said either of these things...
> 
> Reagan destroyed the middle class which had long preceded Carter, and even Republicans used to think was a good idea.  Eisenhower and Nixon got it.  A strong unionized middle class was the backbone of the American economy, and it was more important than one recession.
> 
> Nor do we think that Gorby dismantled the USSR.  We're just pragmatic enough to realize the USSR did not fall because Reagan talked to a wall, or because he armed some crazy jihadists in Afghanistan.
> 
> The USSR fell for the same reason that British Empire fell.
Click to expand...


Yeah, unions. Awesome. In NYC they add anywhere from 25% to 33% to to cost of construction depending on trade. In other words, a project that cost normal people 10MM will cost 12-13 if you use Union Labor.

My office is on 42nd and Lex and everyday I meet union "workers", 4 of them. They start each day by inflating a large rat, blowing whistles and handing out flyers protesting that the building choose not to use Union masons. Can you imagine paying 4 people to protest? Normal business would take that money and spend it on sales and promotion. But not Joe's beloved Unions.

Joe hit the trifecta of Reagan Lies: Reagan destroyed the economy, the USSR fells because they just felt like it and Reagan armed Jihadists.

3 for 3, Joe

Perfect Pathology


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yeah, unions. Awesome. In NYC they add anywhere from 25% to 33% to to cost of construction depending on trade. In other words, a project that cost normal people 10MM will cost 12-13 if you use Union Labor.



Yeah, so?  That extra 2-3 million goes back into the economy with working folks having a little more money in their pocket.   I'm not seeing the problem here that the people who DID the work actually see a little more of the money. 



CrusaderFrank said:


> My office is on 42nd and Lex and everyday I meet union "workers", 4 of them. They start each day by inflating a large rat, blowing whistles and handing out flyers protesting that the building choose not to use Union masons. Can you imagine paying 4 people to protest? Normal business would take that money and spend it on sales and promotion. But not Joe's beloved Unions.



Yup, I think that unions need to go back to what they did in the good old days. It involved kneecaps and lead pipes.  Fuck that inflatable rat shit.  





CrusaderFrank said:


> Joe hit the trifecta of Reagan Lies: Reagan destroyed the economy, the USSR fells because they just felt like it and Reagan armed Jihadists.
> 
> 3 for 3, Joe
> 
> Perfect Pathology



i'm still waiting for you tell me what Reagan actually did to bring down the USSR. 

Exactly. Specifically. 

thanks.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan entered office in 1981 with a short "to do" list
> 
> 1. Let US Businesses get back to work
> 2. Crush the USSR
> 
> By the time he left we were in the middle of the largest and longest peacetime economic expansion in history and the USSR was finished
> 
> People have been lying about his results and that's their problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, he didn't accomplish either.
> 
> Manufacturing jobs declined under Reagan. Oh, he tried to stem the tide by imposing some limits on the Japanese, but the fact is, Reagan stood their impotently while factories shuttered their doors.
> 
> As for the USSR, the thing was, we never saw that coming. Years of being afraid of "The Evil Empire", we discovered they were a collection of third world countries that didn't really like each other that much.
Click to expand...



You never saw it coming. Reagan made it a priority and it happened

Now you're all butthurt he crushed your home team so you have to lie about it


----------



## Care4all

Jroc said:


> *Reagan's policy was to cut individual and corporate tax rates sharply, and to restrain the growth in government spending and regulation. The Democrats, who were in control of the House, resisted and delayed the Reagan tax cuts, so they were not fully implemented until 1983. Obama had the luxury of having his party in control of both houses of Congress, so he was able to get his proposed, massive government spending increases enacted almost immediately.*
> 
> When Reagan left office in January 1989, he had presided over "seven fat years," as Bob Bartley, the now-deceased editor of The Wall Street Journal, called the Reagan era. Unemployment was half of its recession high, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent after the recession bottom in 1982, *the deficit was falling* and was under a very manageable 3 percent of gross domestic product, the GDP-debt ratio was falling, inflation had dropped by about two-thirds, and every American individual and company had seen very sharp reductions in their marginal tax rates &#8212; the maximum rate fell from 70 percent to only 28 percent by the time Reagan left office.
> Keynesian economics, practiced during the late 1960s and 1970s, became thoroughly discredited with the stagflation of the 1970s &#8212; which, in theory, was impossible under the old model &#8212; and the subsequent Reagan supply-side boom.
> 
> The Clinton administration, after its so-so economic performance in the first term with small increases in tax rates and government spending, partially reverted to Reaganomics in its second term; with a capital-gains rate cut and reductions in spending as a percentage of GDP. The result was very strong economic growth and budget surpluses
> 
> 
> 
> Obama?s Economics Failing Under Keynesian Policies
Click to expand...

the quote from the newsmax article stating that the deficit fell under Reagan is  BIG FAT LIE....  you should know that and recognize a lie when you see one.....


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> 
> You never saw it coming. Reagan made it a priority and it happened
> 
> Now you're all butthurt he crushed your home team so you have to lie about it



Guy, I was in the Army at the time the USSR fell in 1989, long after Reagan had left to enjoy his senile dementia. 

No, no one saw it coming.  The Army was still publishing these big glossy OPFOR books about how scary the USSR was because they had technology that was 20 years behind ours.  We were still wargaming the Fulda Gap scenario of a Soviet Invasion of Germany that we now know they never could have pulled off.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Yup, I think that unions need to go back to what they did in the good old days. It involved kneecaps and lead pipes.  Fuck that inflatable rat shit.  .



Which is one reason why all those jobs went south and east, and why you need to work three jobs instead of one.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think that unions need to go back to what they did in the good old days. It involved kneecaps and lead pipes.  Fuck that inflatable rat shit.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is one reason why all those jobs went south and east, and why you need to work three jobs instead of one.
Click to expand...


because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.  

Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Reagan Lie Trifecta: Reagan destroyed the US economy, the USSR was going to collapse anyway and Reagan aided Jihadists


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think that unions need to go back to what they did in the good old days. It involved kneecaps and lead pipes.  Fuck that inflatable rat shit.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is one reason why all those jobs went south and east, and why you need to work three jobs instead of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.
> 
> Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.
Click to expand...


Yes, paying people to inflate rats and protest is what made American great

Moron


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is one reason why all those jobs went south and east, and why you need to work three jobs instead of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.
> 
> Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, paying people to inflate rats and protest is what made American great
> 
> Moron
Click to expand...


No, what labor NEEDS to do is go back tot he good old days. 

This is a picket line. You cross it, you get your knees broken and you'll have no one to blame but yourself. 

This is how we got a middle class in this country.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, unions. Awesome. In NYC they add anywhere from 25% to 33% to to cost of construction depending on trade. In other words, a project that cost normal people 10MM will cost 12-13 if you use Union Labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so?  That extra 2-3 million goes back into the economy with working folks having a little more money in their pocket.   I'm not seeing the problem here that the people who DID the work actually see a little more of the money.
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> My office is on 42nd and Lex and everyday I meet union "workers", 4 of them. They start each day by inflating a large rat, blowing whistles and handing out flyers protesting that the building choose not to use Union masons. Can you imagine paying 4 people to protest? Normal business would take that money and spend it on sales and promotion. But not Joe's beloved Unions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I think that unions need to go back to what they did in the good old days. It involved kneecaps and lead pipes.  Fuck that inflatable rat shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe hit the trifecta of Reagan Lies: Reagan destroyed the economy, the USSR fells because they just felt like it and Reagan armed Jihadists.
> 
> 3 for 3, Joe
> 
> Perfect Pathology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm still waiting for you tell me what Reagan actually did to bring down the USSR.
> 
> Exactly. Specifically.
> 
> thanks.
Click to expand...

Joe in the private sector we work with budgets. Look it up: budget. If I have a $10mm budget I can either hire nonunion and get all $10mm done or I hire union and only get $8mm or the work done ans as Lecter said "half an arch won't stand"

That's why your redistribution economics have a 100% fail guarantee. In the Bronx the BP made a living wage requirements for redevelopment of the kingsbridge Armory. No one in his right mind would take that deal so the Bronx is getting a useless ice skating rink.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> Joe in the private sector we work with budgets. Look it up: budget. If I have a $10mm budget I can either hire nonunion and get all $10mm done or I hire union and only get $8mm or the work done ans as Lecter said "half an arch won't stand"
> 
> That's why your redistribution economics have a 100% fail guarantee. In the Bronx the BP made a living wage requirements for redevelopment of the kingsbridge Armory. No one in his right mind would take that deal so the Bronx is getting a useless ice skating rink.



Guy, I work with budgets in the private sector all day.  

Labor is only a small slice of the pie, and when working folks have more money, they spend more and you have more commerce.  It's really kind of simple, and you guys don't understand it. 

We had our greatest prosperity when the workforce was highly unionized and the wealthy paid their fair share.  

We totally need to go back to that.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, unions. Awesome. In NYC they add anywhere from 25% to 33% to to cost of construction depending on trade. In other words, a project that cost normal people 10MM will cost 12-13 if you use Union Labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so?  That extra 2-3 million goes back into the economy with working folks having a little more money in their pocket.   I'm not seeing the problem here that the people who DID the work actually see a little more of the money.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think that unions need to go back to what they did in the good old days. It involved kneecaps and lead pipes.  Fuck that inflatable rat shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe hit the trifecta of Reagan Lies: Reagan destroyed the economy, the USSR fells because they just felt like it and Reagan armed Jihadists.
> 
> 3 for 3, Joe
> 
> Perfect Pathology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm still waiting for you tell me what Reagan actually did to bring down the USSR.
> 
> Exactly. Specifically.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe in the private sector we work with budgets. Look it up: budget. If I have a $10mm budget I can either hire nonunion and get all $10mm done or I hire union and only get $8mm or the work done ans as Lecter said "half an arch won't stand"
> 
> That's why your redistribution economics have a 100% fail guarantee. In the Bronx the BP made a living wage requirements for redevelopment of the kingsbridge Armory. No one in his right mind would take that deal so the Bronx is getting a useless ice skating rink.
Click to expand...


It isn't labors fault that the obscenely wealthy bankers and investors are fighting over the amount of cash they can skim. The fight has leaked into the media and public knowledge and appears to be a text book case of how the power elite rob the tax payers and tax payer supported projects. One guy is demanding a HALF MILLION DOLLAR pay for his part time work. But lets ignore that and blame the cost of labor instead.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Joe in the private sector we work with budgets. Look it up: budget. If I have a $10mm budget I can either hire nonunion and get all $10mm done or I hire union and only get $8mm or the work done ans as Lecter said "half an arch won't stand"
> 
> That's why your redistribution economics have a 100% fail guarantee. In the Bronx the BP made a living wage requirements for redevelopment of the kingsbridge Armory. No one in his right mind would take that deal so the Bronx is getting a useless ice skating rink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I work with budgets in the private sector all day.
> 
> Labor is only a small slice of the pie, and when working folks have more money, they spend more and you have more commerce.  It's really kind of simple, and you guys don't understand it.
> 
> We had our greatest prosperity when the workforce was highly unionized and the wealthy paid their fair share.
> 
> We totally need to go back to that.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point. Hosts either remove the parasite or perish. No one is going to pay top dollar to unions for work that can be done at a fraction by others. Those days are gone forever. Too much competition.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think that unions need to go back to what they did in the good old days. It involved kneecaps and lead pipes.  Fuck that inflatable rat shit.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is one reason why all those jobs went south and east, and why you need to work three jobs instead of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.
> 
> Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.
Click to expand...


I'm not investing with goons and thugs like you. I'm just not. No matter how much you whine. 

It's my capital, not yours.  And I will go to where I am treated best, not where union Neanderthals might terrorize my kids because I have to lay them off.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Joe in the private sector we work with budgets. Look it up: budget. If I have a $10mm budget I can either hire nonunion and get all $10mm done or I hire union and only get $8mm or the work done ans as Lecter said "half an arch won't stand"
> 
> That's why your redistribution economics have a 100% fail guarantee. In the Bronx the BP made a living wage requirements for redevelopment of the kingsbridge Armory. No one in his right mind would take that deal so the Bronx is getting a useless ice skating rink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I work with budgets in the private sector all day.
> 
> Labor is only a small slice of the pie, and when working folks have more money, they spend more and you have more commerce.  It's really kind of simple, and you guys don't understand it.
> 
> We had our greatest prosperity when the workforce was highly unionized and the wealthy paid their fair share.
> 
> We totally need to go back to that.
Click to expand...


Ah, Joe. Making shit up on the Internet again. What's new?  Labor is by far and away the biggest cost in business.  

You union thugs did it to yourself.  Believing such nonsense is probably a big reason why.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Care4all said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan's policy was to cut individual and corporate tax rates sharply, and to restrain the growth in government spending and regulation. The Democrats, who were in control of the House, resisted and delayed the Reagan tax cuts, so they were not fully implemented until 1983. Obama had the luxury of having his party in control of both houses of Congress, so he was able to get his proposed, massive government spending increases enacted almost immediately.*
> 
> When Reagan left office in January 1989, he had presided over "seven fat years," as Bob Bartley, the now-deceased editor of The Wall Street Journal, called the Reagan era. Unemployment was half of its recession high, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent after the recession bottom in 1982, *the deficit was falling* and was under a very manageable 3 percent of gross domestic product, the GDP-debt ratio was falling, inflation had dropped by about two-thirds, and every American individual and company had seen very sharp reductions in their marginal tax rates &#8212; the maximum rate fell from 70 percent to only 28 percent by the time Reagan left office.
> Keynesian economics, practiced during the late 1960s and 1970s, became thoroughly discredited with the stagflation of the 1970s &#8212; which, in theory, was impossible under the old model &#8212; and the subsequent Reagan supply-side boom.
> 
> The Clinton administration, after its so-so economic performance in the first term with small increases in tax rates and government spending, partially reverted to Reaganomics in its second term; with a capital-gains rate cut and reductions in spending as a percentage of GDP. The result was very strong economic growth and budget surpluses
> 
> 
> 
> Obama?s Economics Failing Under Keynesian Policies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the quote from the newsmax article stating that the deficit fell under Reagan is  BIG FAT LIE....  you should know that and recognize a lie when you see one.....
Click to expand...


paid disinformation agents like him and crusader retard have no interests in FACTS,when confronted with them,they do what their handlers pay them to do,troll these boards and post lies in hopes of brainwashing lurkers that come on here who can think for themsleves.they got them everywhere on message boards. 

  they ignore facts from figures posted in the 80's, actual sources that were posted in newspapers back then,that reagan wrecked the ecomomy and we were much worse going into the 90's than we ever were before reagan got in office.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You never saw it coming. Reagan made it a priority and it happened
> 
> Now you're all butthurt he crushed your home team so you have to lie about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Army at the time the USSR fell in 1989, long after Reagan had left to enjoy his senile dementia.
> 
> No, no one saw it coming.  The Army was still publishing these big glossy OPFOR books about how scary the USSR was because they had technology that was 20 years behind ours.  We were still wargaming the Fulda Gap scenario of a Soviet Invasion of Germany that we now know they never could have pulled off.
Click to expand...


so much for crusader retards ramblings that reagan ended the cold war.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan entered office in 1981 with a short "to do" list
> 
> 1. Let US Businesses get back to work
> 2. Crush the USSR
> 
> By the time he left we were in the middle of the largest and longest peacetime economic expansion in history and the USSR was finished
> 
> People have been lying about his results and that's their problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, he didn't accomplish either.
> 
> Manufacturing jobs declined under Reagan.
> 
> 
> thats the understatement of the century.
Click to expand...


----------



## Meathead

9/11 inside job said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You never saw it coming. Reagan made it a priority and it happened
> 
> Now you're all butthurt he crushed your home team so you have to lie about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Army at the time the USSR fell in 1989, long after Reagan had left to enjoy his senile dementia.
> 
> No, no one saw it coming.  The Army was still publishing these big glossy OPFOR books about how scary the USSR was because they had technology that was 20 years behind ours.  We were still wargaming the Fulda Gap scenario of a Soviet Invasion of Germany that we now know they never could have pulled off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so much for crusader retards ramblings that reagan ended the cold war.
Click to expand...

Yeah, now all you have to do is change history.

Fool


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> [
> That's kind of the point. Hosts either remove the parasite or perish. No one is going to pay top dollar to unions for work that can be done at a fraction by others. Those days are gone forever. Too much competition.



The only parasites I see are the investors.  They aren't actually making anything. 

The people who make stuff the stuff aren't the problem, guy.  

And frankly, we can't compete against shitholes that use child labor no matter how much we debase ourselves, so we shouldn't even try.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is one reason why all those jobs went south and east, and why you need to work three jobs instead of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.
> 
> Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not investing with goons and thugs like you. I'm just not. No matter how much you whine.
> 
> It's my capital, not yours.  And I will go to where I am treated best, not where union Neanderthals might terrorize my kids because I have to lay them off.
Click to expand...


well, that's the thing, you odn't have to lay them off. And frankly, we need to start treating the investment bankers like organized crime.  

Actually, scratch that, I have more respect for the Mafia than Wall Street.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> You never saw it coming. Reagan made it a priority and it happened
> 
> Now you're all butthurt he crushed your home team so you have to lie about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I was in the Army at the time the USSR fell in 1989, long after Reagan had left to enjoy his senile dementia.
> 
> No, no one saw it coming.  The Army was still publishing these big glossy OPFOR books about how scary the USSR was because they had technology that was 20 years behind ours.  We were still wargaming the Fulda Gap scenario of a Soviet Invasion of Germany that we now know they never could have pulled off.
Click to expand...


You were in Soviet Army


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama?s Economics Failing Under Keynesian Policies
> 
> 
> 
> the quote from the newsmax article stating that the deficit fell under Reagan is  BIG FAT LIE....  you should know that and recognize a lie when you see one.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> paid disinformation agents like him and crusader retard have no interests in FACTS,when confronted with them,they do what their handlers pay them to do,troll these boards and post lies in hopes of brainwashing lurkers that come on here who can think for themsleves.they got them everywhere on message boards.
> 
> they ignore facts from figures posted in the 80's, actual sources that were posted in newspapers back then,that reagan wrecked the ecomomy and we were much worse going into the 90's than we ever were before reagan got in office.
Click to expand...

Hilarious that HWs disinformation agent is accusing me of being just like him


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.
> 
> Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not investing with goons and thugs like you. I'm just not. No matter how much you whine.
> 
> It's my capital, not yours.  And I will go to where I am treated best, not where union Neanderthals might terrorize my kids because I have to lay them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, that's the thing, you odn't have to lay them off. And frankly, we need to start treating the investment bankers like organized crime.
> 
> Actually, scratch that, I have more respect for the Mafia than Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Joe your attitude is why Progressive economies fail 100% of the time. Capital is the life blood of an economy


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> Joe your attitude is why Progressive economies fail 100% of the time. Capital is the life blood of an economy



No it isn't.  

Capital is a parasite that has convinced you it's a vital organ, and its spends as much time selling junk as providing needed services.  

Whenever you guys whine 'Well, you see, Socailism didn't work", it's usually a country like Cuba that wasn't any great shakes before Socialism was tried. And you ignore Europe and Japan where it works just fine.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, scratch that, I have more respect for the Mafia than Wall Street.



You support goons and thugs, so that's not a surprise.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Joe your attitude is why Progressive economies fail 100% of the time. Capital is the life blood of an economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> Capital is a parasite that has convinced you it's a vital organ, and its spends as much time selling junk as providing needed services.
> 
> Whenever you guys whine 'Well, you see, Socailism didn't work", it's usually a country like Cuba that wasn't any great shakes before Socialism was tried. And you ignore Europe and Japan where it works just fine.
Click to expand...


They don't see capital as the parasitic enemy in Scandinavia like you do, Joseif.  Capital is taxed at a much lower rate than income in Sweden.  They understand that free trade and capital investment is important to maintain their standard of living.

Thuggery is why manufacturing jobs left the north.  Why would anyone want to invest with goons like you?


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [
> 
> They don't see capital as the parasitic enemy in Scandinavia like you do, Joseif.  Capital is taxed at a much lower rate than income in Sweden.  They understand that free trade and capital investment is important to maintain their standard of living.
> 
> Thuggery is why manufacturing jobs left the north.  Why would anyone want to invest with goons like you?



Obviously, you've never tried to get product into a scandinavian country.  

Manufacturing left AMERICA because the Free Traders decided that they could make more money exploiting child labor in the third world.  Just because they opened a few factories in JesusLand doesn't mean much. 

I have one vendor in the South that I use. I've asked Corporate to fire their asses for about a year.  I am still awaiting stock that I ordered in February from these clowns.  They usually ship things missing parts, so we've had to open the box to check.  Cleetus and BillyBob aren't getting the job because they do it better. 

Of course, we are talking about people who fly the Confederate Flag like that's something to be proud of.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> They don't see capital as the parasitic enemy in Scandinavia like you do, Joseif.  Capital is taxed at a much lower rate than income in Sweden.  They understand that free trade and capital investment is important to maintain their standard of living.
> 
> Thuggery is why manufacturing jobs left the north.  Why would anyone want to invest with goons like you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you've never tried to get product into a scandinavian country.
> 
> Manufacturing left AMERICA because the Free Traders decided that they could make more money exploiting child labor in the third world.  Just because they opened a few factories in JesusLand doesn't mean much.
> 
> I have one vendor in the South that I use. I've asked Corporate to fire their asses for about a year.  I am still awaiting stock that I ordered in February from these clowns.  They usually ship things missing parts, so we've had to open the box to check.  Cleetus and BillyBob aren't getting the job because they do it better.
> 
> Of course, we are talking about people who fly the Confederate Flag like that's something to be proud of.
Click to expand...


Sure, Josef. Sure.


----------



## Dad2three

thanatos144 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old are you?????? 20's? Because only a  young idiot believe such bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you prefer the MYTH conservatives have created about Ronnie
> 
> 
> * The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan *
> 
> 
> ...*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. *Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord. I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you idiot I was alive during this time.
Click to expand...


Conservative moron who believes only they were around, lol

Sorry, Ronnie got the first and last GOP votes I have ever cast, I then grew a brain, you should try it!


----------



## Dad2three

Meathead said:


> I know this will be hard for some of our more vacuous contributors, but most would choose to take the word of someone who risked life and limb on the front line. Lech Walesa is one such person:
> 
> *When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.
> 
> Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
> 
> I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.*
> 
> In Solidarity - WSJ
> 
> The man was a giant, and only midgets object.



Got it, ONLY Reagan did that, NOT 7 previous US presidents *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The country didn't go bankrupt Fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.
> 
> 
> The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Partys embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits dont matter if they result from tax cuts.
> 
> Cue the FoxNews denunciations.
> 
> David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems.
> 
> David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stockman is a fucking retard.
Click to expand...


Called out your emperor for lack of clothing so you are upset. Got it


----------



## Dad2three

CrusaderFrank said:


> Reagan took a lot of people in his Administration only because the RNC made him. First was his scumbag VP (9/11's Boss) and second was Stockman whom Reagan admonished for being a fucking liar





So you saying Ronnie was 'made' to do things by the RNC? lol


----------



## Dad2three

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is one reason why all those jobs went south and east, and why you need to work three jobs instead of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.
> 
> Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not investing with goons and thugs like you. I'm just not. No matter how much you whine.
> 
> It's my capital, not yours.  And I will go to where I am treated best, not where union Neanderthals might terrorize my kids because I have to lay them off.
Click to expand...





*"It's my capital, not yours."*




PLEASE pull a Galt, PRETTY PLEASE?


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala A theory of a divided nation 



In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally arent as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while* the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinists paradise.*


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala | New Republic


----------



## Dad2three

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Joe your attitude is why Progressive economies fail 100% of the time. Capital is the life blood of an economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> Capital is a parasite that has convinced you it's a vital organ, and its spends as much time selling junk as providing needed services.
> 
> Whenever you guys whine 'Well, you see, Socailism didn't work", it's usually a country like Cuba that wasn't any great shakes before Socialism was tried. And you ignore Europe and Japan where it works just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't see capital as the parasitic enemy in Scandinavia like you do, Joseif.  Capital is taxed at a much lower rate than income in Sweden.  They understand that free trade and capital investment is important to maintain their standard of living.
> 
> Thuggery is why manufacturing jobs left the north.  Why would anyone want to invest with goons like you?
Click to expand...




Why Does Sweden Have So Many Billionaires?

High taxes and a generous welfare state are no barrier to Nordic riches.

Read the actual article 

Sweden?s billionaires: They have more per capita than the United States.

Sweden has a 30% cap gains rate, GOPers want to get rid of ours in the US, lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the 1%ers are suicidal greedy.
> 
> Yes, we know you guys are.  It's like you never fucking learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not investing with goons and thugs like you. I'm just not. No matter how much you whine.
> 
> It's my capital, not yours.  And I will go to where I am treated best, not where union Neanderthals might terrorize my kids because I have to lay them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, that's the thing, you odn't have to lay them off. And frankly, we need to start treating the investment bankers like organized crime.
> 
> Actually, scratch that, I have more respect for the Mafia than Wall Street.
Click to expand...


you and me both.sadly,wall street is who every president since 1981 has served instead of the american people.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, you prefer the MYTH conservatives have created about Ronnie
> 
> 
> * The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan *
> 
> 
> ...*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. *Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord. I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you idiot I was alive during this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative moron who believes only they were around, lol
> 
> Sorry, Ronnie got the first and last GOP votes I have ever cast, I then grew a brain, you should try it!
Click to expand...


 he was alive at the time,in a baby carriage.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.*
> 
> *This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. **Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. *Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
Click to expand...


 two birds of a feather reagan and Obama.No wonder Obama liked reagan so much,he reminded him so much  of himself,someone who betrayed the middle class,sent jobs overseas,got us into the worst debt ever,was a mass murderer,and shit on the black people.definetely two birds of a feather. No wonder Reagan was hiis idol and no wonder  he said in his inagural address he wanted to be just like him. 

He sure has followed in Reagans footsteps.His role model sure had a huge influence on him no doubt.He learned very well from the master how to betray the american people and give them the middle finger.He studied reagan very well and did an EXCELLENT job of following in his footsteps. He must have gone to the same acting school reagan did.Just like reagan was so good at,the american people in their gullability are falling for Obamas phony acting just like they got taken in by reagans acting.some things never change.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class - *
> 
> Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office.  Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office
> 
> The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
> 
> 
> *2. Tripling the National Debt -*
> 
> As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran/Contra*
> 
> Reagan funded Terrorists
> 
> Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ignoring AIDS -*
> 
> By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> *Reagan gave amnesty to 4 million Undocumented Immigrants *
> 
> 
> His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -
> 
> The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cut and paste king.. Reagan simplified the tax code, unleased our energy production which help to  pulled people out of poverty. People moved into the middle class, upper class. the Reagan economic boom lasted throughout Clinton administrstion. Thank you Ronald Reagan. I have no doubt you are a hack on the democrat party dole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, you probably believe that crap
> 
> Reagan 'simplified' it by gutting revenues by giving tax cuts to the rich, that's why he tripled US debt!
> 
> 
> Ronnie gets credit for Clinton's good economy huh? lol... How about the recession Poppy Bush inherited BECAUSE Ronnie ignored regulator warnings on the S&L crisis?
> 
> 
> *The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth *
> 
> 
> *President Clintons Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing.* Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression.
> 
> 
> Strong Economic Growth: *Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years.* The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
> 
> 
> *Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years*the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> *Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years*
> 
> 
> 
> *Lowest Inflation since the 1960s*
> 
> 
> 
> *7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993*
> 
> 
> 
> Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt
> 
> *President Clintons Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. *The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in Americas history.
> 
> 
> 
> * Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000the lowest level since 1966. *
> 
> 
> 
> *To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:
> 
> Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote*. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction.
> 
> 
> *"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."*
>  Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994
> 
> 
> 
> "Clintons 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
>  Business Week, May 19, 1997
> 
> 
> The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth
Click to expand...


yeah as corrupt as clinton was,job growth at least grew under him.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush should have done an FDR and rounded up all Middle Eastern males, amiright Libturds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably should have attacked Saudi instead of Iraq since that's where the majority of hijackers were from right conservatard?
Click to expand...


sure is amazing how this country got to be where there is one different law for politicians than there is for american citizens.Bush knowingly invaded the wrong country which would have beem the same as FDR invading mexico for the japense bombing pearl harbour,he commits a criminal act like that and yet is allowed to walk the streets carefree and yet,the american sheople STILL put their hands over their heart and sing the national anthem believing the propaganda by our government that were the land of the free instead of the land of the oppressed.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Zmrzlina said:


> Afghanistan under Soviet rule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan under Taliban rule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Such freedom. So Liberated.



this will overload drugged out brains like MEATHEADS and crusader retards  with this logic and common sense.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Dad2three said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> *After Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981, U.S. funding of the mujahideen increased significantly*
> 
> 
> The Reagan Doctrine was a strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.
> 
> Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to diminish Soviet influence in these regions as part of the administration's overall Cold War strategy.
> 
> 
> *With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter's Afghanistan policy into a more global "doctrine", including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.*
> 
> Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Damned well worked a lot better than Detente. He wisely continued Carter's policy in Afghanistan along with a full-court press which helped unravel the USSR and the old Brezhnev hacks.
> 
> You are not as stupid as I thought, but that's not much of a standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five Friends Food 'Fresh Bars' 	What We Know about Climate Change 	Inside Climate News 	Go Fossil Free 	RealClearScience Newton Blog
> Monday, March 21, 2011
> The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
> By Tom Maertens
> (A version of this originally appeared in the Mankato, MN Free Press.)
> 
> A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.
> 
> This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagans presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagans 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and American Enterprise Institute that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter. They singled out Reagans 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who was there.
> 
> The plutocrats idolize Reagan because he cut taxes on the wealthy -- on income, capital gains, interest, and dividends -- and increased taxes on working people, including raising the self-employment (SECA) tax rate by 60%. He made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), and school lunch programs. Mark Hertsgaard (On Bended Knee: the Press and the Reagan Presidency) called it arguably the single greatest government-led transfer of wealth in history, and in the direction of the top two percent; the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third under Reagan. The result is an enduring, entitled class of individuals who believe that work should be taxed, but wealth should not, and probably, like Reagan that The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless. They control the Republican Party.
> 
> Their revisionist history makes Reagan into a small-government fiscal conservative, but he actually grew the government by 53% (Mises Institute), increasing military expenditures by 27% and creating another new department, Veterans Affairs. He never submitted a balanced budget and ended up tripling the national debt to $3 trillion. His S&L bailout cost 2.4 times more to fix (relative to GDP) than Bushs financial crisis. The Washington Post reported in Reagan's last year that "In less than a decade, the world's largest creditor nation has become its leading debtor.
> 
> *Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of Containment by eight U.S. presidents.* As Tony Judts Postwar concluded: Washington did not bring down Communism  Communism imploded of its own accord.
> 
> 
> 
> Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


pesky facts like this are going to make crusader retard and his cohorts go into meltdown mode and cry.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> We Created Al Qaeda to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan
> 
> *Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of Al Qaeda in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.*
> 
> Brzezinski told Al Qaedas forefathers  the Mujahadin:
> 
> We know of their deep belief in god  that theyre confident that their struggle will succeed.  That land over-there is yours  and youll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and youll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.
> 
> *Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Front row, from left: *Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistans Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI)*, *Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster*; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a *Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.* (source RAWA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11 | Global Research
> 
> 
> *GROW A BRAIN BUBBA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> agent censores handlers are going to get desperate now trying to think up new lies to tell him to post now after you took him to school just then especially with that photo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> while having fun trying to watch them weasel out of this picture of reagan,its going to be fun watching these agents try and weasel out of this picture of Bush hanging out and partying with saudi's as well.  Bush must be BI SEXUAL.the fact he is kissing one of them on the mouth here. I would say these pics of reagan and Bush we have posted Dad speak a thousand words wouldnt you?
> 
> The Atlantean Conspiracy: The 9/11 Inside Job (part 3)
> 
> I would say from these photos in this link of mine that little Bush went down the same roadpath that daddy Bush did when he was VP under reagan.I would say daddy Bush introduced junior to all these loveable guys at some point when he was the VP the fact that he was also friends with these pals of Ronnies wouldnt you?
> 
> these trolls no doubt are going to have to check with their handlers and spend some time on the computer going back and forth with them on what kind of lies to come up and post next to try and get around these facts of ours I guarantee.
Click to expand...


Hey dad,how did the the agent trolls reply to these pics of ours of reagan and Bush hanging out partying with the saudis?


----------



## thanatos144

The  young and stupid. ...

Tapatalk


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan&#8217;s policies.*
> 
> *This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. **Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. *Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> two birds of a feather reagan and Obama.No wonder Obama liked reagan so much,he reminded him so much  of himself,someone who betrayed the middle class,sent jobs overseas,got us into the worst debt ever,was a mass murderer,and shit on the black people.definetely two birds of a feather. No wonder Reagan was hiis idol and no wonder  he said in his inagural address he wanted to be just like him.
> 
> He sure has followed in Reagans footsteps.His role model sure had a huge influence on him no doubt.He learned very well from the master how to betray the american people and give them the middle finger.He studied reagan very well and did an EXCELLENT job of following in his footsteps. He must have gone to the same acting school reagan did.Just like reagan was so good at,the american people in their gullability are falling for Obamas phony acting just like they got taken in by reagans acting.some things never change.
Click to expand...


i been wondering,where on earth did you get that pic of reagan and obama,i love it,it is so appropriate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thanatos144 said:


> The  young and stupid. ...
> 
> Tapatalk



dumb2three is probably about 13 - his posts certainly indicate it.

But I suspect 9/11 is in his 50's - with decades of alcohol and drug abuse.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

someone farted in here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy.
> 
> 
> The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Partys embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits dont matter if they result from tax cuts.
> 
> Cue the FoxNews denunciations.
> 
> David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems.
> 
> David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stockman is a fucking retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Called out your emperor for lack of clothing so you are upset. Got it
Click to expand...


Reagan had to take on people who were against him, including Stockman.

History shows Stockman is as wrong as Krugman


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan took a lot of people in his Administration only because the RNC made him. First was his scumbag VP (9/11's Boss) and second was Stockman whom Reagan admonished for being a fucking liar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you saying Ronnie was 'made' to do things by the RNC? lol
Click to expand...


Yes, including taking 9/11's Boss, HWBush as his VP

March 30, 1981


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dad2three said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see Reagan tax cuts only gutted revenues because they would have gone up anyway and the tax cuts, (follow this logic) kept revenue away from government (see, the Reagan haters have to take the position that the money all belongs to the government anyway) so actually the tax cuts that boosted the US economy and lead to a nearly doubling of government receipts actually hurt the economy (Try standing on your head it might make sense)
> 
> Remember, Gorby was going to tear down the wall anyway and the revenues would ahve nearly doubled anyway, Reagan was like Chauncy Gardner and really lucky all this just happened during his Presidency
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan and bin Laden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagans policies.*
> 
> *This is not surprising given that no one in the Reagan administration ever claimed that his 1981 tax cut would pay for itself or that it did. **Reagan economists Bill Niskanen and Martin Anderson have written extensively on this oft-repeated myth. *Conservative economist Lawrence Lindsey made a thorough effort to calculate the feedback effect in his 1990 book, The Growth Experiment. He concluded that the behavioral and macroeconomic effects of the 1981 tax cut, resulting from both supply-side and demand-side effects, recouped about a third of the static revenue loss.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games
Click to expand...


Phony Metric Alert in Chart Form


----------



## LA RAM FAN

at 1:05,1:07,and 1:48 pm today someone farted in here.

THREE TIMES!!!!


----------



## LA RAM FAN

hey crusader retard lover of reagan,you really should be embarrassed to show yourself around here.I remember echo zulu who used to be a mod here,she never made fun of anybody when she was here but she did with YOU one time.the fact that even echo zula laughed at you one time thats pretty bad. she was laughing at your hypocrisy you display around here.your such a hypocrite you ignore the fact that alex jones has talked about how corrupt reagan was and yet like you do with everybody else here,you ignore him and dismiss him yet when he talks about how corrupt obama is and how he isnt even a us citizen,you are then all of a sudden tooting his horn. 

you're the biggest dumbfuck hypocrite troll that ever graced these boards and a sad excuse for a human being which is  saying an awful lot about you. I havent seen anybody as much of a disgraceful troll around here since pale retard used to post here. you guys are two birds of a feather.He was a hypocrite as well,always saying jones was a fool saying Bush was involved in 9/11 yet when he made a video about obama the obama deception,all of a sudden jones was his hero.you two are the most pathetic hypocrite trolls i have ever encountered here at this site before.you two should marry each other. like i always told that dumbfuck back then,cant have it both ways hypocrite.If jones is wrong about reagan,then he is wrong about Obama as well being a us citizen and being corrupt. wonder what kind of dumbfuck reply your handler coaches you into saying this time knowing you are cornered as always.


----------

