Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.”

Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American

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]

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

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.

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]

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

[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]

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]

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.”

Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories: Scientific American

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.

Wow!.. This guy is really out there intervention is defiantly warranted

 

[Camp]

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.

 

[Jroc]

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.

Yeah ok

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

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.

 

[Meathead]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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.