10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Think Progress


Tomorrow will mark the 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth, and all week, conservatives have been trying to outdo each others’ remembrances of the great conservative icon. Senate Republicans spent much of Thursday singing Reagan’s praise from the Senate floor, while conservative publications have been running non-stop commemorations. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee and former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich are hoping to make a few bucks off the Gipper’s centennial.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.
Conservatives seem to be in such denial about the less flattering aspects of Reagan; it sometimes appears as if they genuinely don’t know the truth of his legacy. Yesterday, when liberal activist Mike Stark challenged hate radio host Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and demanded, “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?
 
GUNNER, ACTINASS, WERE YA AT!





<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eHXq8TRejow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​
 
I knew you would post this!:D

That's why I bookmarked this!


ThinkProgress Celebrates Ronald Reagan's Birthday By Marketing Its Top Ten Lies Intended to Smear the 20th Century's Greatest President
That was quick--ThinkProgress attacks Ronald Reagan with their usual slate of laughably fraudulent fabrications

It didn't take long for the loons at ThinkRegress to begin attacking the memory of the 20th century's greatest president. The culmination of their effort -- '10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan' -- is a list of Reagan's policies that conservatives supposedly want to hide from the general public.

Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to untie the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress' "top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan" are as follows:

" 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser" - Reagan suffered from overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress when he took office. While he desperately wanted to strip away huge swaths of government (including eliminating the then newly created Department of Education), he had no choice but to compromise with the Democrats who controlled the budgetary purse-strings. When Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate was 28% (today's it's 35% and under Bill Clinton it was nearly 40%).

"2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit by enacting a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously" - Another flat-out lie. Before his 25 percent across-the-board cut in individual income-tax rates went into effect, government receipts from individual income taxes trickled in at $244.1 billion. The year Reagan left office, they totaled $445.7 billion -- an 82 percent jump. As for the deficits, Democrats outspent every one of the nine budgets Reagan proposed but one. Further, Democrats refused to make corresponding cuts in wasteful domestic programs to offset the defense appropriations Reagan needed to combat the Soviet Union after the Carter administration's foreign policy disasters (e.g., Iran, Afghanistan, et. al.).

"3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts" - Before the full tax-relief package was passed -- against the wishes of many Democrats, by the way -- the jobless rate hit 9.6 percent. But as the cuts rippled through the economy, unemployment dropped every year after 1983, reaching a low of 5.3 percent in 1989. And tax cuts benefited minorities, too. The jobless rate among blacks plunged from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989.

"4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously" - this again omits the role of Congressional Democrats who controlled the purse-strings and refused to axe the programs and agencies that Reagan requested. In fact, the media portrayed Reagan as "heartless" and depicted him as "laughable and malevolent" for his attempts to strip away the federal bureaucracy. But the only way the Democrat Congress would accept a defense buildup and tax cuts was for Reagan to agree to their domestic spending agenda. In fact, the budget deficits of the 1980s made the surpluses in the 1990s possible; the balanced budget was aided by surging tax revenues from a healthy, low-tax economy and immense defense savings made possible by the fall of the Soviet Union.

"5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose [sic]" - Reagan was adamant about ending the practice of 'abortion on demand' and proposed that legislation be drafted to do so (you can hear Reagan's 1983 address on this subject); but he "had little success in gaining its acceptance by Congress."

" 6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.”" - this is sheer revisionist idiocy; Reagan believed, first and foremost, in peace through strength. He gave dozens of speeches on this topic, rebuilt the U.S. military after Carter had stripped it bare, and created the impetus for the oft-derided SDI ("Star Wars") program that has since become an essential part of U.S. national security strategy. His famous slogans on this topic were "peace through strength" and "trust but verify".

" 7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants" - The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal. At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

Reagan himself said, "This country has lost control of its borders. And no country can sustain that kind of position."

" 8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran" -Democrats launched a six-year, $40 million investigation of Reagan in a politically inspired witch-hunt. Reagan was, in fact, found guilty of absolutely nothing. Furthermore, indictments were intentionally handed down mere days before the 1992 election that pitted George H. W. Bush against Bill Clinton -- presumably to levy the maximum amount of political damage on the GOP candidate. Near the end of the investigations, The Baltimore Sun reported that a "federal trial judge in Washington dismissed Oliver North's conviction" and that "[c]riticism of Mr. Walsh's prosecution and of the law that authorized it will become more intense [because the] public has gotten precious little from his [at the time] $30 million, four-year effort".

"9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act" - Reagan vehemently opposed apartheid ("Apartheid is morally wrong and politically unacceptable [... the] United States cannot maintain cordial relations with [such] a government") but he did not support the approach advocated by Congress. He issued an executive order restricting trade with the Pretoria government and virtually ended inter-bank dealings. But he believed that Congress' unilateral sanctions would harm blacks most of all and eradicate all of the leverage he wanted to bring to bear on South Africa. He wanted a timetable for the elimination of apartheid laws, the release of all political prisoners (especially Nelson Mandela) and a removal of the ban on black political movements. He felt he could not negotiate with the South African government if he had nothing to trade. His 1986 speech -- "Ending Apartheid in South Africa" -- comprehensively described his plans and approach.

" 10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden" - Gee, next they'll be complaining that we had to side with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis. This sort of leftist lunacy simply rewrites history. We needed to sabotage the Soviets' efforts in Afghanistan to prevent a dramatic power-shift in the Middle East. Blaming Reagan for the Taliban and Bin Laden is like blaming Henry Ford for the problem of too many scrap tires.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Rest assured that the Left is just as stupid, dishonest and disingenuous as they were when you were in office.
 
So its the Democrats fault Regan did all those things, even though the reason for the artical was to SHOW that Regan did all those things :confused:
 
Happy Birthday, Mr. President. Rest assured that the Left is just as stupid, dishonest and disingenuous as they were when you were in office.

The dishonesty is right in front of your face! You live in a Bizarro World for sure!

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eHXq8TRejow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Revisionism will not be tolerated here!

I knew you would post this!:D

That's why I bookmarked this!

" 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser" - Reagan suffered from overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress when he took office. While he desperately wanted to strip away huge swaths of government (including eliminating the then newly created Department of Education), he had no choice but to compromise with the Democrats who controlled the budgetary purse-strings. When Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate was 28% (today's it's 35% and under Bill Clinton it was nearly 40%).




<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p09UwgM8RA8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HIR14I0grt4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​
 
Last edited:
Reaga-Vs-Obama-month-37.gif


Argue with the Bureau of Labor.:hmm:
 
Reaga-Vs-Obama-month-37.gif


Argue with the Bureau of Labor.:hmm:

:lol::lol::lol:

Obama in office for two years, Reagan in office for 8. You are insulting your own intelligence. Comparing apples and oranges. You are pathetic!

You should call your Liberty Works, "Dick" Armey graph the Laugher curve, since it is so laughable!
 
Ron Reagan Jr. Claims Dad Had Alzheimer's in Office


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7254617n#ixzz1DWaOg87Q

<embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&uvpc=http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/uvp_cbsnews.xml&contentType=videoId&contentValue=50098926&ccEnabled=false&amp;hdEnabled=false&fsEnabled=true&shareEnabled=false&dlEnabled=false&subEnabled=false&playlistDisplay=none&playlistType=none&playerWidth=425&playerHeight=239&vidWidth=425&vidHeight=239&autoplay=false&bbuttonDisplay=none&playOverlayText=PLAY%20CBS%20NEWS%20VIDEO&refreshMpuEnabled=true&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7254617n&adEngine=dart&adPreroll=true&adPrerollType=PreContent&adPrerollValue=1" />
 

assist:

<embed name="msnbc5ed3bf" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=41480462&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

For those like me, who hate to watch videos to learn what they are about,
this one is about the white-washing/distortion of the Reagan record to the
point of creating a mythic or even mystic-like character with virtues he may
never have possessed. I-RON-ically, an article I read the other day entitled
De-mystifying the Reagan mystique makes the point that not even those
on the right are happy with this distortion, apparently because it portrays
Reagan too far center and wipes out or erases his so-called "conservative"
accomplishments, much to their chagrin.

QueEx
 
Thought, really, take a deep breath, go outside, go date, go do something with your life...

Seriously....

*trying to imagine how it would be when the NEXT Reagan beats the new Carter*
 
assist:

<embed name="msnbc5ed3bf" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=41480462&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

For those like me, who hate to watch videos to learn what they are about,
this one is about the white-washing/distortion of the Reagan record to the
point of creating a mythic or even mystic-like character with virtues he may
never have possessed. I-RON-ically, an article I read the other day entitled
De-mystifying the Reagan mystique makes the point that not even those
on the right are happy with this distortion, apparently because it portrays
Reagan too far center and wipes out or erases his so-called "conservative"
accomplishments, much to their chagrin.

QueEx

Thanks for the assist. Not to go too far off on a tangent, but I wonder how BGOL's resident conservatives feel about what is going on in Egypt. I have a strange feeling that they are more Glenn Beck than William Kristol. :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the assist. Not to go too far off on a tangent, but I wonder how BGOL's resident conservatives feel about what is going on in Egypt. I have a strange feeling that they are more Glenn Beck than William Kristol. :D

Of course they don't like it. Any people of color with a valuable resource determining their own way, peacefully is totally against what the right (conservatives) stand for. History ought to tell you that!
 
Thanks for the assist. Not to go too far off on a tangent, but I wonder how BGOL's resident conservatives feel about what is going on in Egypt. I have a strange feeling that they are more Glenn Beck than William Kristol. :D

Well, one of them spoke in Post #13 above, but seems to have passed on the opportunity. :hmm:

Quex
 
Of course they don't like it. Any people of color with a valuable resource determining their own way, peacefully is totally against what the right (conservatives) stand for. History ought to tell you that!

Thanks for the assist. Not to go too far off on a tangent, but I wonder how BGOL's resident conservatives feel about what is going on in Egypt. I have a strange feeling that they are more Glenn Beck than William Kristol. :D

On Egypt, I'm only happy if the people have some understanding where they want to take their government after this situation. I would be very satisfied if they took their pseudo-democracy to a pro-western style government. The thing we ALL don't want is another Iran.

Since we are talking about democracy, was it one of the reasons we actually went to Iraq? OH yea, we obviously can't give Bush credit for pushing the political envelope in the middle east right?

Without Iraq, Egypt would still be under oppression..... Care to argue that point?
 
On Egypt, I'm only happy if the people have some understanding where they want to take their government after this situation. I would be very satisfied if they took their pseudo-democracy to a pro-western style government. The thing we ALL don't want is another Iran.

Since we are talking about democracy, was it one of the reasons we actually went to Iraq? OH yea, we obviously can't give Bush credit for pushing the political envelope in the middle east right?

<font size="3">Without Iraq, Egypt would still be under oppression..... Care to argue that point?</font size>

Care to make the factual nexus ? ? ?

QueEx
 
On Egypt, I'm only happy if the people have some understanding where they want to take their government after this situation. I would be very satisfied if they took their pseudo-democracy to a pro-western style government. The thing we ALL don't want is another Iran.

Since we are talking about democracy, was it one of the reasons we actually went to Iraq? OH yea, we obviously can't give Bush credit for pushing the political envelope in the middle east right?

Without Iraq, Egypt would still be under oppression..... Care to argue that point?


Since when is it the place of any other country to determine what another sovereign's destiny is? Only invaders "go in to" other countries without provocation. You got it twisted, that's the problem.

The thing we ALL don't want is another Iran.

If you don't want another Iran, the US shouldn't back another Shah! (This is way over your head.)
 
Since when is it the place of any other country to determine what another sovereign's destiny is? Only invaders "go in to" other countries without provocation. You got it twisted, that's the problem.



If you don't want another Iran, the US shouldn't back another Shah! (This is way over your head.)

Actually you have it twisted.

It seems that you like to keep certain facts out the equation, and Que *like always* says nothing about it.

I know you hate the fact we went into Iraq. Yea, I know it's a shitty deal. However, if you can't admit the fact that Iraq had FREE elections had a great influence towards the political movement in the Middle East, then you are out your damn mind.

All that hate is going to make you a heart attack statistic...
 
On Egypt, I'm only happy if the people have some understanding where they want to take their government after this situation. I would be very satisfied if they took their pseudo-democracy to a pro-western style government. The thing we ALL don't want is another Iran.

Since we are talking about democracy, was it one of the reasons we actually went to Iraq? OH yea, we obviously can't give Bush credit for pushing the political envelope in the middle east right?

Without Iraq, Egypt would still be under oppression..... Care to argue that point?


Are you seriously positing that Egypt took it's cue from Iraq? The only connection between Bush, Iraq and Egypt is that without the torture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi by Egyptian authorities, the Bush administration would not have had the "intelligence" linking Iraq to 9/11. If you are giving Bush credit for Democracy in Egypt, do you also claim responsibility for Hezbollah's position in Lebanon or Hamas in the PNA? :D What about Suleiman? I hear he is adored in Egypt for his close ties to the Bush administration and that the Egyptian public was devastated he couldn't take over. :lol:
 
Are you seriously positing that Egypt took it's cue from Iraq? The only connection between Bush, Iraq and Egypt is that without the torture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi by Egyptian authorities, the Bush administration would not have had the "intelligence" linking Iraq to 9/11. If you are giving Bush credit for Democracy in Egypt, do you also claim responsibility for Hezbollah's position in Lebanon or Hamas in the PNA? :D What about Suleiman? I hear he is adored in Egypt for his close ties to the Bush administration and that the Egyptian public was devastated he couldn't take over. :lol:

I'm only using the information that we all have. The media is portraying this as a peaceful protests *funny 400 deaths is considered peaceful...lets not dwell on that fact*. The protests suppose to be about wanting some sort of democracy right? I'm only going for what I have heard, and if this is about elections then YOU definitely need to give credit to Bush for even having the nuts to go into Iraq. Yet, these fucks won't do it because that would be admitting that they were wrong.
 
<font size="3"> if you can't admit the fact that Iraq had FREE elections had a great influence towards the political movement in the Middle East, then you are out your damn mind.</font size>
<font size="3">
Again, care to make the factual nexus ? ? ?

QueEx
</font size>
 
Actually you have it twisted.

It seems that you like to keep certain facts out the equation, and Que *like always* says nothing about it.

I know you hate the fact we went into Iraq. Yea, I know it's a shitty deal. However, if you can't admit the fact that Iraq had FREE elections had a great influence towards the political movement in the Middle East, then you are out your damn mind.

All that hate is going to make you a heart attack statistic...


Why did you ignore the Iran comment? Ignorant of history or just ignorant?
 
I'm only using the information that we all have. The media is portraying this as a peaceful protests *funny 400 deaths is considered peaceful...lets not dwell on that fact*. The protests suppose to be about wanting some sort of democracy right? I'm only going for what I have heard, and if this is about elections then YOU definitely need to give credit to Bush for even having the nuts to go into Iraq. Yet, these fucks won't do it because that would be admitting that they were wrong.

How many died in the Bush invasion of Iraq and why can't Bush leave the US?

GW gets NO credit. A lost decade.
 
Why did you ignore the Iran comment? Ignorant of history or just ignorant?

How many died in the Bush invasion of Iraq and why can't Bush leave the US?

GW gets NO credit. A lost decade.

1. anyone could put charges against you. It doesn't mean that the charges are true. Have it occur to you that maybe Bush don't want a media circus over some false charges? Perhaps, Bush is saving that card until AFTER 2012? I mean if I was him, and I wanted to give NOTHING to my enemies, I wouldn't go anywhere until Obama is out of office. Besides, Texas is the best place to be held "hostage" in. :lol::lol::lol:

2. So, you're blaming Carter for the Shah in Iran losing control? Didn't know you can criticize a Democratic president...

Que, I'm not going to play fact check with you until you start getting on Thoughtone's facts more.
 
Que, I'm not going to play fact check with you until you start getting on Thoughtone's facts more.

I'm not in your dispute with T.O., so do try to hide behind T.O.

I would just like for you to set out the fact connections. If you aren't relying upon any, hell, LOL, just say so.

QueEx
 
I'm only using the information that we all have. The media is portraying this as a peaceful protests *funny 400 deaths is considered peaceful...lets not dwell on that fact*. The protests suppose to be about wanting some sort of democracy right? I'm only going for what I have heard, and if this is about elections then YOU definitely need to give credit to Bush for even having the nuts to go into Iraq. Yet, these fucks won't do it because that would be admitting that they were wrong.

I see that you completely glossed over any part of my reply that is problematic for your "Bush the liberator" narrative. :D The media is portraying this as a peaceful revolution because it was a peaceful revolution. The Egyptian security forces are essentially the Basij with infinitely more training and resources. The fact that they managed to only kill 400 protestors is nothing short of a miracle. For the sake of reference, how many died during the opening weeks of Bush's "revolution" in Iraq? What information did I refer to that is not widely available? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was the genesis of the democracy movement in Egypt, why is Suleiman not celebrated by the people? Finally, how did it take "nuts" to act rashly and without any concept of the balance of power in the region? I completely understand that Krauthammer et al. are in full spin mode at the moment, but come on...:smh:
 
I see that you completely glossed over any part of my reply that is problematic for your "Bush the liberator" narrative. :D The media is portraying this as a peaceful revolution because it was a peaceful revolution. The Egyptian security forces are essentially the Basij with infinitely more training and resources. The fact that they managed to only kill 400 protestors is nothing short of a miracle. For the sake of reference, how many died during the opening weeks of Bush's "revolution" in Iraq? What information did I refer to that is not widely available? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was the genesis of the democracy movement in Egypt, why is Suleiman not celebrated by the people? Finally, how did it take "nuts" to act rashly and without any concept of the balance of power in the region? I completely understand that Krauthammer et al. are in full spin mode at the moment, but come on...:smh:

How is it a peaceful revolution when 400 has died?

Plus, how would Egyptians have the courage to stand up to a dictator if the War in Iraq didn't produce elections?
 
Thought, really, take a deep breath, go outside, go date, go do something with your life...

Seriously....

*trying to imagine how it would be when the NEXT Reagan beats the new Carter*

There is no "next Reagan" because the Political Right has gone so far to the right, it keeps their politicians from even sounding as conciliatory or centrist as Reagan and Bush II portrayed themselves when they ran.

On Egypt, I'm only happy if the people have some understanding where they want to take their government after this situation. I would be very satisfied if they took their pseudo-democracy to a pro-western style government. The thing we ALL don't want is another Iran.

Since we are talking about democracy, was it one of the reasons we actually went to Iraq? OH yea, we obviously can't give Bush credit for pushing the political envelope in the middle east right?

Without Iraq, Egypt would still be under oppression..... Care to argue that point?

How is it a peaceful revolution when 400 has died?

Plus, how would Egyptians have the courage to stand up to a dictator if the War in Iraq didn't produce elections?

I'm waiting for you to make connection as well. No one, not even Fox News, is pushing that line. No one has reported or shown any Egyptians using Iraq and their now-years old elections as an inspiration. In fact, they cite Tunisia, who also don't cite Iraq.

What this does it confirm something I've believed for years: when people get tired enough of their dictators, they overthrow them. It's never failed once. When the people get fed up, it's over. There will be some false starts but when the $h!t hits the fan, there's only one result.
On the other hand, democracy imported as Bush II tried to do is always a disaster as it's been in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
1. anyone could put charges against you. It doesn't mean that the charges are true. Have it occur to you that maybe Bush don't want a media circus over some false charges? Perhaps, Bush is saving that card until AFTER 2012? I mean if I was him, and I wanted to give NOTHING to my enemies, I wouldn't go anywhere until Obama is out of office. Besides, Texas is the best place to be held "hostage" in. :lol::lol::lol:

2. So, you're blaming Carter for the Shah in Iran losing control? Didn't know you can criticize a Democratic president...

Que, I'm not going to play fact check with you until you start getting on Thoughtone's facts more.


anyone could put charges against you. It doesn't mean that the charges are true

Not against the President of a sovereign nation. No ex American president has been under fear of prosecution when leaving the US. GW is a first. And if President Obama didn't put the brakes on Eric Holder, GW would be under investigation here. I thought you republicans were strict law and order.

So, you're blaming Carter for the Shah in Iran losing control?

Yes, Carter was part of a long line of policy stretching back to Eisenhower that was responsible for alienating the Iranian people. Iran is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. Dr. King said, America, don't be so arrogant to think that God won't look down on your self righteousness and think you are above his judgment. Again, way over your head. You still haven't addressed the backing of the Shah. But, since you are intellectually lazy, I will attribute that to ignorance of history and not ignorance. I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt, barely. Let me give you a hint, we didn't have to have the problems with Iran if we had supported the democratically elect President of Iran instead of aligning ourselves with oil.

History fool, history!

Texas is the best place to be held "hostage" in

Like him?:yes:

3521xci.jpg




Que, I'm not going to play fact check with you until you start getting on Thoughtone's facts more.

Because you don't operate from facts! If you checked my facts, you wouldn't have the attitude you have. It's really dangerous for a Black Man in America to think that the white man's shit don't stink!
 
while you have to give Reagan his due, for the overall state of the union versus what he started with post Carter, but you also cant neglect the shit he left also

but I dont get how people who love this dude, forget about the crack era, the destruction of the parts of Latin America, the non attention to the oil standard, Apartheid, the creation of Osama Bin laden etc

no president is perfect, the current one included lol, but lets stop this Reagan love shit :smh::smh::smh:
 
Back
Top