Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
....
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.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
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
All in the imperative mood. You are not an emperor. You are a dupe of the 1% and their Saudi allies.
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.
REAGANS 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 worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays 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.
The KKK are democrats and thus Kennedy voters.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, Kennedys 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
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.
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.
USSR
USSR
USSR
USSR
USSR
Reagan
No more USSR
See how that works?
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
REAGANS 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 worthassets minus liabilitiesof all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in todays 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.
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.
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 executed) 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.
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
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.
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. 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.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
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.
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.
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
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.oh and i also love it oldstly how you ran off when cornered with facts that the CIA controls the media.
