Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[Camp]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

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]

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.

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]

[

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]

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]

[

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.

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]

[


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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[editec]

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

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]

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.

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 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]

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.

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?

 

[Camp]

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.

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 to wonder why that additional 4,000 troops came home in boxes.