The World Mocks Your President

[Camp]

My objection to Reagan mostly regards his poor response to terrorist attacks that I and many experts believe led to the acceptance of terrorism as a viable and acceptable political tactic. That is not a subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

When your "expert" opinion is deemed objective rather than subjective, in other words, when hell freezes over, there will have been no contradiction in your ponderous statement.

I doubt many others are share your idea that your opinions are objective and therefore gospel truth.

Facts certify the comments about the lack of terrorist attacks specifically aimed at American targets in my post is provable. If not, feel free to provide links to the terrorist attacks specifically aimed at Americans by middle eastern terrorist prior to the Reagan administration coming to power. You can answer this routine and simple question with a simple listing of the attack and the date.

I have provided you with expert opinion many times, but you choose to ignore the link I have posted many, many times. Marine Commander Col. Timothy J. Geraghty wrote an entire book on the subject. He finished his career in the Marines as a top terrorist expert at the Pentagon and went on to become a top terrorist consultant for the US government after he retired. His book is titled 'Peace Keepers-War-Beirut Marine Commander"
A review of the book can be fount at;

amazon.com/PeaceKeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commander/dp/1597974250

This book is the main source for my opinion on this topic. That and the simple process of researching all the terrorist attacks and responses during the Reagan years that confirm the facts put forward by Col. Geraghty. Feel free to address Col. Geraghty's analysis and analitical conclusions based on his military level objective facts.

 

[WheelieAddict]

One Russian response to US sanctions was actually pretty amusing

This tweet is a taunt, showing how easily they can influence dumb Americans.

 

[miketx]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

Prove it or shut up.

 

[August West]

The world's been mocking our president for at least four years. That's about the hopeychangey thing came tumbling down along with Red Lines and so on.

That hopeychangey thing was great. If the DOW drops 12,000 today it will be higher than it was when Gomer left office. Unemployment rate is half of what it was and Obama hasn`t lied us into any new wars.

 

[gipper]

I don't see how any more U.S. sanctions on Russia will have any effect. The present ones and the drop in oil prices have already made the Russian economy a disaster.

Plus they are an act of war.

 

[gipper]

Russia hacks our country and all you can do is attack our president? Who's side are you on?

Prove it or shut up.

Proof is only required of the Left's political opponents.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

My objection to Reagan mostly regards his poor response to terrorist attacks that I and many experts believe led to the acceptance of terrorism as a viable and acceptable political tactic. That is not a subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

 

[JQPublic1]

Russian propaganda has done well over the last few years in the USA. Its success could and can be seen right here at USMB. A key group of posters and agent provocateurs has managed to assemble significant numbers of dupes or, unwitting and poorly informed or misinformed Americans to echo and mimic the Russian state propaganda at sites like this one as if it were viable and reliable, accurate and true. This has been made possible by the constant and persistent hate mongering towards the US government and "liberals" and "Democrats", ignoring the fact that that they are stereotyping and demonizing at least half, and probably more than half the Amerian population.
Look at the graphic in post #8 and remember it the next time Trump supporters whine and bitch about being called racist.

You're pretty inconsistent there Campy. You bemoan Reagan's success in bringing down the Soviets and now you are railing against "Russian propaganda" because you imagine it brought down a decidedly anti-Russian candidate (and a complete sleaze).

The only reason I can think of is that Russia is no longer the workers paradise that you envision for America.

You traitorous bahs=turd, you give Reagan too much credit. But at leastt he seemed to have America's interests at heart. We are now about to inaugurate a man who, from the looks of things, has been mesmerized by a modern day Rasputin .

Isn't it time to put on your "big girl"pantsuit? The Beast lost the election because she and her staff were sleazy and sloppy. Obama's legacy failed because he was weak and facilitating. All the petulance and whining in the world is not going to change that.

Look, fool I don't give a damn about Hillary at this juncture. Since the Republicans got the nod, I would rather see a Republican president who still loves America in the White House. I just don't want a black mailed KGB shill as the leader of this nation. And he is unabashed about it!

 

[Eloy]

One Russian response to US sanctions was actually pretty amusing

Donald Trump supporters agree with the Russians.

 

[Camp]

My objection to Reagan mostly regards his poor response to terrorist attacks that I and many experts believe led to the acceptance of terrorism as a viable and acceptable political tactic. That is not a subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

 

[Meathead]

My objection to Reagan mostly regards his poor response to terrorist attacks that I and many experts believe led to the acceptance of terrorism as a viable and acceptable political tactic. That is not a subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

You really don't get it, do yo?. The Lt. Col.'s opinion is subjective and not "objective fact". Yours, on the other hand, is absolutely meaningless. You're getting annoying and petulant.

I am not sorry that Reagan was a prime force in toppling the USSR and I will not say so to calm your nerves. Neither do I accept that terrorism, in the modern sense, started with the Reagan administration. you need to do your homework before presuming to challenge the more learned kid.

 

[Iceweasel]

Russian propaganda has done well over the last few years in the USA. Its success could and can be seen right here at USMB. A key group of posters and agent provocateurs has managed to assemble significant numbers of dupes or, unwitting and poorly informed or misinformed Americans to echo and mimic the Russian state propaganda at sites like this one as if it were viable and reliable, accurate and true. This has been made possible by the constant and persistent hate mongering towards the US government and "liberals" and "Democrats", ignoring the fact that that they are stereotyping and demonizing at least half, and probably more than half the Amerian population.
Look at the graphic in post #8 and remember it the next time Trump supporters whine and bitch about being called racist.

You're full of shit. Liberal stupidity and corruption has been observable all along. Blaming the Ruskies is just more of the same. You simpletons always need a nice simple answer to any opposition. The opposition exists because most of us haven't made a religion out of politics like you guys do.

 

[Iceweasel]

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

One of the key factors of Reagan winning was Carter's inept handling of the ME and our hostages, released hours after Ronnie took office. He shares that impression with Trump, who unlike obama has shown some spine and will likely not be used as a doormat.

 

[EverCurious]

@OP

Read the comments and weep the demise of your beloved party Democrats:

Hacking? No. insufficient email server securing? Yes. Insufficient encorcement of email policies? Yes.
You know how may 3rd parties have DNC email dbs? Lol.
Heres the things one should learn from this:
1. Any IT organization/cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC should be barred from doing any work for the US Govt
2. CTO/CIO for DNC and Secy of State should be fired "with cause" for not enorcing encryption policy, mobile device policies, etc.
the election was not "hacked". Results were not altered. Democrats are idiots.
Insecure emails were snooped by many 3rd parties.
And heres the kicker.
Those emails were provided to their "employers". That would be US, the American Voter. I got to see my employees emails whose servers I pay for. Just like my employer gets to monitor my emails.


I have a very strong feeling that your foolish leaders have bit off more than they could chew by proclaiming hacktivists the world over as Russian lap dogs. I fully expect the DNC to be deluged with retaliatory hacks for such an insult to their egos. The fun is just beginning, and the worst part is not only did their ploy fail to have the effect they wished on Putin, it's failing miserably with the American public as well. If I were a Republican I'd be dancing in the streets today; they're likely just as corrupt, of course, but they're smart enough to know basic email security it seems ~smirks~

 

[rightwinger]

Russia is not worried

They bought a President and they will get what they paid for

Trump will lift all sanctions and do as he is told

 

[there4eyeM]

Better to be a mocked President than a mock President (Reagan, "W", Trump).

 

[there4eyeM]

Any enemy of America could only dream of doing as much damage to it as "W" did.

 

[imawhosure]

One Russian response to US sanctions was actually pretty amusing

Donald Trump supporters agree with the Russians.

My objection to Reagan mostly regards his poor response to terrorist attacks that I and many experts believe led to the acceptance of terrorism as a viable and acceptable political tactic. That is not a subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

Not the sharpest tack at the best of times, I know, but see if you can spot the contradiction.

That people like you are entitled to vote is indeed disturbing, but Trump won anyway.

No contradiction. Terrorism specifically aimed at American targets by middle eastern terrorist was practically non-existent unless you count the take over of the Iranian Embassy. American targets took hold under the Reagan administration, particularly with the bombing of our Embassy in Beruit followed by the bombing of the Marine Barracks that killed over 240 Marines and maimed more. Those attacks alone caused a perceptible victory for the terrorist and caused Reagan to pull out and run without viable retaliation or justice dealt for the perpetrators or those attacks. Simply google terrorism of the eighties to see what followed and ended with the Christmas present that was given to Reagan just before he left office. It is best known as the Lockerbie Bombing when an American commercial jet full of Americans, including students, was bombed out of the sky.

Stop with all the blame republicans BS. Exactly what action did Clinton and the democrats do in regards to how terrorism needed to be dealt with? There is a vast difference to be found in finally admitting to an attack, with taking measures to actually respond and prevent them. Waiting for a devastating event to occur FIRST is not exactly a role model in how to respond towards a terrorist attack. If Clinton had any national security concerns at all, terrorists wouldn't find so many attacks they could get away with under that administration, with ample ability to comfortably plot and plan 9-11.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

First, I did not blame Republicans, I put the emphasis and blame on President Reagan. Second, I do not consider deflecting away from the thesis and foundation of a debate by deflecting to how situations and circumstances of other parties such as another President in this case as being a valid argument. Whether Clinton or democrats behaved poorly years after Reagan left office has nothing to do with how Reagan reacted to terrorist attacks. It is just a way of admitting there is no viable excuse for Reagan's failure in this particular issue in his Presidency.
The direct response to your question is that policies towards terrorist attacks against the USA began to immediately change under President Bush 41 and the changes continued into the Clinton administration. Perhaps not enough, certainly a viable argument and even obvious one that the responses after Reagan left were still not certain and aggressive enough, however, the terrorist changed from the usual ME suspects and culprits to the cult of al Queda.

One of the key factors of Reagan winning was Carter's inept handling of the ME and our hostages, released hours after Ronnie took office. He shares that impression with Trump, who unlike obama has shown some spine and will likely not be used as a doormat.

Such logic from Elroy of the left, and his friends, lol.

Russians like to breathe, and Trump supporters agree with them and breathe too, therefore, Trump supporters love Russians.

Russians like vodka, it is their national alcoholic beverage! Trump supporters like screwdrivers, and screwdrivers have vodka in them, and so this means that most Trump supporters are Communists.

And finally, Putin likes Caviar........a lot..a massive amount of a lot. President Obysmal loves caviar too! Therefore, by the far leftist logic of Elroy, Camp, and the rest of far leftists, we must have a Putins brother in the whitehouse today. That is correct, Putin calls him, "unda-cova-brotha!"

Hey, I know this whole post is based on sarcasm, but the left might agree with it since if we agree with anything the Russians do, we are automatically sympathetic to the Russians, lolololol! Hey, Obama did the wrong thing on expelling the Russian diplomats so close to the transfer of power. OH-OH-OH, you are sympathetic with the Russians, and Obama just ate some caviar in Hawaii too, hehehehehehehehe!

 

[Iceweasel]

Better to be a mocked President than a mock President (Reagan, "W", Trump).

Coming from a leftist that's a compliment to Republican presidents. Trump isn't even in office yet and you call him a mock president. Stupidity and hate is all the left has to offer anymore.

 

[Iceweasel]

Any enemy of America could only dream of doing as much damage to it as "W" did.

How so?