Reagan & Conservatives -- Revisonist History 101

[editec]

ALL this thread proves is that people cannot have rational debates when they are working with two different sets of facts.

 

[Camp]

How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?

 

[bedowin62]

How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?

lmao

more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan

crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank; why bother responding to Joe B?

he's an unrepentent loser progressive wallowing in hypocrisy; living in the past

He's also a big fan of Josef Stalin and he claims to have served in the military but I believe it was the Soviet Army

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Camp]

ALL this thread proves is that people cannot have rational debates when they are working with two different sets of facts.

No one has challanged the facts I have provided in regards to terrorist attacks and responses to those attacks (OR LACK OF) during the Reagan years.

 

[bedowin62]

Frank; why bother responding to Joe B?

he's an unrepentent loser progressive wallowing in hypocrisy; living in the past

He's also a big fan of Josef Stalin and he claims to have served in the military but I believe it was the Soviet Army

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

he is the LOSER who used to call himself armytimesssg ON AOL message boards; bulletman or 357 on MSNBC message boards. he never served in a combat zone; not that it should matter but he is the one harping on his military service

he's a moron pure and simple

 

[Camp]

How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?

lmao

more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan

crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives

The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.

 

[bedowin62]

How do these various charts compare to student bodies falling out of the sky above Lockerbie? Is there a chart that shows the importance of American citizens getting pulled off planes, beat up, murdered and thrown onto the tarmac vs. tax stuff? If such a chart were made, how would the people blown up at Embassies count? Do the staff workers count if they were not American?

lmao

more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan

crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives

The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.

no it's about accusing others of revisionist history; when in fact the accusers are more guilty of it than the people they are accusing of doing it

you're simply a joke

Reagan couldnt do jack if his 8-year dem House majority and 2-year Senate majority didnt want him to.

so many Dems voted for reagan's policies they had to invent the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT to describe them


what good is a thread that is a lie right from the start?

oh yea i know; you idiot libs LIE TO YOURSELVES and then expect others to follow the false premises you built off the lies you told yourselves

idiots and hypocrites

 

[Camp]

lmao

more idiotic hyperbole from losers that cant defend obama's failed agenda; so rant about reagan

crying is so much easier than living in the present for so-called Progressives

The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.

no it's about accusing others of revisionist history; when in fact the accusers are more guilty of it than the people they are accusing of doing it

you're simply a joke

Reagan couldnt do jack if his 8-year dem House majority and 2-year Senate majority didnt want him to.

so many Dems voted for reagan's policies they had to invent the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT to describe them


what good is a thread that is a lie right from the start?

oh yea i know; you idiot libs LIE TO YOURSELVES and then expect others to follow the false premises you built off the lies you told yourselves

idiots and hypocrites

You still haven't learned what the term Reagan Democrat means. Are you to stupid or to lazy to google the term and learn what it meant? You keep insisting it refers to elected Representatives and Senators that supported his policies and hence voted for those policies because they agreed with them. I have asked you for a link to show that definition and you have failed to do that. But you just keep on using it and ignoring what every definition on any search site will give. If you understood the actual meaning of the term you might begin to understand that an era of comprimise and working for the good of the nation existed before the extremist and party first politicians came into being and took control.
If it piss's you off that some people consider all the economic's of that era meaningless compared to what Reagan did to support and help create the era of terrorism and power obtained by terrorist thats just to bad. You don't get to decide what people consider priority issue's and what is more important than something else.
You surely live in a delusional world if you think you can debate the topic of President Reagan without the simple basic knowledge of what a Reagan Democrat was and his contribution to creating modern day terrorism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan Democrat was a Democrat who voted with America and Reagan. They're now extinct

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[bedowin62]

The thread is in the history forum and it is about Ronald Reagan. If you don't like history don't post in the history forum. Don't read about it and don't learn from it.

no it's about accusing others of revisionist history; when in fact the accusers are more guilty of it than the people they are accusing of doing it

you're simply a joke

Reagan couldnt do jack if his 8-year dem House majority and 2-year Senate majority didnt want him to.

so many Dems voted for reagan's policies they had to invent the term REAGAN DEMOCRAT to describe them


what good is a thread that is a lie right from the start?

oh yea i know; you idiot libs LIE TO YOURSELVES and then expect others to follow the false premises you built off the lies you told yourselves

idiots and hypocrites

You still haven't learned what the term Reagan Democrat means. Are you to stupid or to lazy to google the term and learn what it meant? You keep insisting it refers to elected Representatives and Senators that supported his policies and hence voted for those policies because they agreed with them. I have asked you for a link to show that definition and you have failed to do that. But you just keep on using it and ignoring what every definition on any search site will give. If you understood the actual meaning of the term you might begin to understand that an era of comprimise and working for the good of the nation existed before the extremist and party first politicians came into being and took control.
If it piss's you off that some people consider all the economic's of that era meaningless compared to what Reagan did to support and help create the era of terrorism and power obtained by terrorist thats just to bad. You don't get to decide what people consider priority issue's and what is more important than something else.
You surely live in a delusional world if you think you can debate the topic of President Reagan without the simple basic knowledge of what a Reagan Democrat was and his contribution to creating modern day terrorism.

no loser; it's not that i havent learned; theproblem is you're far too much of an intellectual coward to admit i'm right
nothing you have posted; including the post above; reveals a definition of Reagan Democrat that differs from what you are whining about i've posted


you're a clown

 

[bedowin62]

seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it

you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo

ur a JOKE

 

[bedowin62]

seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it

you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo

ur a JOKE

FURTHERMORE; it DOESNT MATTER;
the point is idiots like you on the Left love to rant about Reagan; ignoring your own Party's history of cooperation on his agenda.

NOW you want to admit it while still whining about it.

how does that work?

at the time; as YOU ADMIT; your own Party thought his ideas were great; for the "good of the country" as you indicate in YOUR OWN POST ABOVE


so stop your idiotic whining and just own it; you cant whine against policies you supported and not look like the moron you are

 

[Camp]

seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it

you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo

ur a JOKE

FURTHERMORE; it DOESNT MATTER;
the point is idiots like you on the Left love to rant about Reagan; ignoring your own Party's history of cooperation on his agenda.

NOW you want to admit it while still whining about it.

how does that work?

at the time; as YOU ADMIT; your own Party thought his ideas were great; for the "good of the country" as you indicate in YOUR OWN POST ABOVE


so stop your idiotic whining and just own it; you cant whine against policies you supported and not look like the moron you are

Take a cool drink before you blow a gasket. After you cool down, google Reagan Democrat. Maybe even look up the word legacy. You might come to realize that Reagan doesn't have an economic legacy. None of his economic policies have withstood the test of time. They have no effect on todays economy. His policies in regards to terrorism and terrorist groups however, remain and continue to effect the world we live in. Hence, his legacy is fairly judged to be his impact on the creation of modern terrorism.

 

[bedowin62]

seriously you're simply a loser lying to himself; and it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to prove it

you say an era of cooperation existed that isnt present now; but that cant explain the reason for the term Reagan Democrat since the term pre-dates the more modern era of "non-cooperation' y ou exist now. SO; if cooperation was the norm back in the day; there would have been no reason to have the term Reagan Democrat coined; since according to you that was the status quo

ur a JOKE

FURTHERMORE; it DOESNT MATTER;
the point is idiots like you on the Left love to rant about Reagan; ignoring your own Party's history of cooperation on his agenda.

NOW you want to admit it while still whining about it.

how does that work?

at the time; as YOU ADMIT; your own Party thought his ideas were great; for the "good of the country" as you indicate in YOUR OWN POST ABOVE


so stop your idiotic whining and just own it; you cant whine against policies you supported and not look like the moron you are

Take a cool drink before you blow a gasket. After you cool down, google Reagan Democrat. Maybe even look up the word legacy. You might come to realize that Reagan doesn't have an economic legacy. None of his economic policies have withstood the test of time. They have no effect on todays economy. His policies in regards to terrorism and terrorist groups however, remain and continue to effect the world we live in. Hence, his legacy is fairly judged to be his impact on the creation of modern terrorism.

YAWN
here you go just continuing to make a fool of yourself. you say none of Reagan's policies have an effect on today's economy?

better get with literally dozens of your fellow LWNJs on these boards who INSIST we are still suffering because of Reagans' policies. which is it?
and since things are relative; what is obama's economic legacy genius? i cant wait to hear this!
what policies 'in regards to terrorism"?
are terrorists responsible for their actions?

and Carter installed the world's first islamo-fascist state when he decided his fellow "man of God" (carter is an ordained minister) the Ayatollah Khomeini was a great choice for Iran


ur a joke

oh and AGAIN this thread is about re-writing history; which is what you are doing

 

[Camp]

You don't know the difference between an effect and a legacy.

 

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, Camp? Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true. There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them. Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.

 

[Iceweasel]

With all due respect, Camp? Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true. There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them. Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.

...which is exactly why they feel the need to rewrite history and destroy his legacy. It gets in the way.

 

[Camp]

With all due respect, Camp? Saying Reagan's policies have not stood the test of time is laughably not true. There are conservative Governors as we speak that are using the same economic policies as Reagan espoused to stimulate their economies and having great results because of them. Then there is the matter of the longest period of sustained economic growth in our nation's history as a result of Reagan's economic policies.

Good point, but the word "espoused" gives the opportunity to debate. I will concede however that if Governors are indeed using his policies as differentiated from the original source in a composite way of his own compilation, that would constitute an originality that certainly would be worthy of accurately being viewed as a legacy.

 

[Oldstyle]

All you need to do is compare where Reagan had the country going by year six of his Administration with where Obama has the country going in year six of HIS Administration to know that Reagan had a much better grasp of economics and was doing a much better job of stimulating the US economy than Obama has. It's quite frankly...not even close!